The Project Gutenberg eBook of Steam-ships
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: Steam-ships
The story of their development to the present day
Author: R. A. Fletcher
Release date: January 31, 2024 [eBook #72847]
Language: English
Original publication: United Kingdom: Sidgwick & Jackson, Ltd, 1910
Credits: Peter Becker, Harry Lamé 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 STEAM-SHIPS ***
Transcriber’s Notes
Text printed in italics and bold face in the source document has been
transcribed between _underscores_ and =equal signs= respectively.
Small capitals have been converted to ALL CAPITALS. ^e represents a
superscript e.
[T], [U] and [V] represent T-, U- and V-shaped symbols rather than
the actual letters.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the end of this text.
STEAM-SHIPS
_UNIFORM WITH THIS VOLUME_
SAILING SHIPS:
THE STORY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT
DAY
BY E. KEBLE CHATTERTON
With a Coloured Frontispiece by
CHARLES DIXON
and over 130 Illustrations from Original Sources,
Photographs, Models, &c.
_Extra Royal 8vo, 384 pages, in Designed Cover, Cloth Gilt, 16s.
net_
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM FAWCETT,” THE FIRST P. & O. STEAM-SHIP, 209
TONS, BUILT 1829.
ON THE LEFT IS A BOMB KETCH, A TYPE WITHDRAWN FROM THE NAVY ABOUT THIS
DATE.
ON THE RIGHT IS H. M. S. “ST. VINCENT,” 101 GUNS.
_From a Painting by Charles Dixon_
_By kind permission of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co._]
STEAM-SHIPS
THE STORY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT
TO THE PRESENT DAY
BY
R. A. FLETCHER
WITH A HUNDRED AND
FIFTY ILLUSTRATIONS
[Illustration]
LONDON
SIDGWICK & JACKSON, LTD.
3 ADAM STREET, ADELPHI, W.C.
1910
_All rights reserved_
[Illustration: PREFACE]
The story of the Steam-ship, and of its development up to the
present time, covers little more than a hundred years. In the
companion volume,[1] the evolution of the sailing ship necessitated a
comprehensive survey of some eight centuries; but that we need vessels,
not only faster than the sailing ship, but also more independent of the
weather conditions, is shown by the fact that in the world’s shipping
tonnage of to-day (omitting small vessels) the proportion of steam to
sail is as nine to one. The “seven seas” must be crossed with speed and
safety, in the interest of all nations that have a mile of sea coast;
but the Anglo-Saxon race, as it has contributed--from either side of
the Atlantic--most largely to the mechanical and structural development
of the steam-ship, now depends most vitally upon the organisation of
its naval and transportation systems. Napoleon said that the strength
of an army lay in its feet; no less true is it that the strength of our
Empire lies in her ships.
[1] “Sailing Ships and their Story,” by E. Keble Chatterton, 1909.
A hundred years ago it was impossible to forecast with any accuracy
how long a journey might take to accomplish, and the traveller by
land or sea was liable to “moving accidents by flood and field”; but
side by side with the growth of the steam-ship, and the accompanying
increase of certainty in the times of departure and arrival, came the
introduction of the railway system inland. Between the two, however,
there is the fundamental difference that the sea is a highway open
to all, while the land must be bought or hired of its owners; and
the result of this was that inland transportation, implying a huge
initial outlay on railroad construction, became the business of
wealthy companies, whereas any man was free to build a steamboat
and ply it where he would. The shipowner, moreover, has a further
advantage in his freedom to choose his route, because he is at liberty
to “follow trade”; but if, as has happened before now, the traffic
of a town decreases, owing to a change in, or the disappearance of,
its manufactures, the railway that serves it becomes proportionately
useless.
In another essential, the development of steam-transport on land and
sea provides a more striking contrast. The main features of George
Stephenson’s “Rocket” showed in 1830, in however crude a form as
regards detail and design, the leading principles of the modern
locomotive engine and boiler; but the history of the marine engine, as
of the steam-ship which it propels, has been one of radical change.
The earliest attempts were made, naturally enough, in the face of great
opposition. Every one will remember Stephenson’s famous retort, when
it was suggested to him that it would be awkward for his engine if a
cow got across the rails, that “it _would_ be very awkward--for the
cow”;--and at sea it was the rule for a long while to regard steam
merely as auxiliary to sails, to be used in calms. While ships were
still built of wood, and while the early engines consumed a great deal
of fuel in proportion to the distance covered, it was impossible to
carry enough coal for long voyages, and a large sail-area had still
to be provided. Progress was thus retarded until, in 1843, the great
engineer Brunel proved by the _Great Britain_ that the day of the
wooden ship had passed; and the next ten years were marked by the
substitution of iron for wood in shipbuilding.
Thenceforward the story of the steam-ship progressed decade by decade.
Between 1855 and 1865 paddle-wheels gave place to screw propellers,
and the need for engines of a higher speed, which the adoption of the
screw brought about, distinguished the following decade as that in
which the “compound engine” was evolved. Put shortly, “compounding”
means the using of the waste steam from one cylinder to do further
work in a second cylinder. The extension of this system to “triple
expansion,” whereby the exhaust steam is utilised in a third cylinder,
the introduction of twin screws, and the substitution of steel for
iron in hull-construction, were the chief innovations between 1875 and
1885. The last fifteen years of the century saw the tonnage of the
world’s shipping doubled, and the main features of mechanical progress
during that period were another step to “quadruple expansion” and the
application of “forced draught,” which gives a greater steam-pressure
without a corresponding increase in the size of the boilers. The
first decade of the present century has been already devoted to the
development of the “turbine” engine.
I have to thank the Institute of Marine Engineers at Stratford, E.,
for much valuable assistance and for placing its _Transactions_ at my
disposal; if I have not acknowledged every item derived therefrom I
trust that this general acknowledgment will suffice. To Mr. J. Kennedy,
author of “The History of Steam Navigation”; Mr. A. J. Maginnis,
author of “The Atlantic Ferry”; and Captain James Williamson, author
of “The Clyde Passenger Steamer,” I am greatly indebted for their kind
permission to draw freely upon their books: and to the publishers of
the two latter, Messrs. Whittaker and Co. and Messrs. MacLehose and
Sons respectively, for the loan of illustrations. Special thanks are
also due to Mr. E. A. Stevens of Hoboken, New Jersey, U.S.A., not only
for information concerning the experiments made by Colonel Stevens with
the screw propeller, but also for the loan of some unique photographs
of early American boats. Mr. A. J. Dudgeon, M.I.N.A., M.I.C.E., son
of the well-known Thames shipbuilder, has revised a large amount of
my work, and was good enough to place at my disposal his valuable
scrap-books, from the pictures in which my friend Mr. Ernest Coffin
has drawn several charming line-illustrations and the initial letters
to the chapters. For various assistance I have to thank other friends
and correspondents: Mr. James A. Smith, M.I.N.A; Mr. Harry J. Palmer,
formerly of _Shipping Illustrated_, New York, and now assistant to
Captain Clark, Lloyd’s agent at New York; Mr. J. W. Little, of Messrs.
Little and Johnson; and Mr. James Gallagher of Paris for his researches
at the Academy of Sciences and elsewhere.
For permission to reproduce many illustrations of models, &c., in the
Science Museum at South Kensington, I am indebted to the Board of
Education; while for particular information I am glad to acknowledge
the especial courtesy of Messrs. Barclay, Curle and Co., Ltd., of
Whiteinch, Messrs. R. and W. Green, Ltd., Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and
Wigham Richardson, Ltd.; and, for revising the portion relating to
Floating Docks and supplying illustrations thereof, to Messrs. Clark
and Standfield. To many other famous shipbuilding firms who have
supplied material or illustrations thanks must also be tendered:
Messrs. Harland and Wolff of Belfast; Messrs. A. and J. Inglis of
Glasgow; Messrs. Thornycroft and Co., Ltd.; the Carron Company; Messrs.
Yarrow; Messrs. Eltringham and Co., Ltd.; Messrs. Smith’s Docks Co.,
Ltd.; Messrs. Palmer’s Shipbuilding and Iron Co., Ltd.; Messrs.
Armstrong, Whitworth and Co., Ltd.; the Parson’s Marine Steam Turbine
Co., Ltd.; the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.; the Vulcan
Shipbuilding Co. of Stettin; Messrs. W. Denny and Brothers, Ltd., of
Dumbarton; Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co., Ltd.; Messrs. William Gray
and Co., Ltd.; Sir Raylton Dixon and Co. of Middlesbrough; Messrs. W.
Doxford and Sons of Sunderland; and the Newport News Shipbuilding and
Dry Dock Company, U.S.A.
To many shipowning firms I and my publishers are alike indebted for
information and the loan of illustrative material; the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Co., Ltd.; The Cunard Company; the White Star
Line; the American Line; the Pacific Steam Navigation Company; the
Orient Line; Messrs. Shaw, Savill and Co., Ltd.; Lund’s Blue Anchor
Line; the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company; Messrs. Elder, Dempster
and Co., Ltd.; the General Steam Navigation Company; the Isle of Man
Steam Packet Company, Ltd.; the principal Railway Companies owning
steam-ships; the Anchor Line; the Allan Line; Messrs. Brocklebank and
Co.; the Bibby Line; Messrs. George Thompson and Son’s Aberdeen Line;
the North German Lloyd, and the Hamburg-American Line.
Certain illustrations appear by arrangement with the editors of the
_Magazine of Commerce_, the _Shipping World_, the _Syren and Shipping_,
the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_ (of New York), the _Engineer_, and the
_Shipbuilder_. The photograph of the _Minas Geraes_ is reproduced by
special permission of his Excellency the Chief of the Brazilian Naval
Commission.
R. A. FLETCHER
_June 1910_
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
I. PRIMITIVE EXPERIMENTS IN PROPULSION -- SOME EARLY
EXPERIMENTS WITH STEAM 1
II. AMERICAN PIONEERS IN STEAM NAVIGATION 19
III. THE PROGRESS OF STEAM-SHIP BUILDING IN GREAT BRITAIN 56
IV. RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR STEAM-SHIPS 102
V. OPENING OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE 122
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE 149
VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEAM AUXILIARY -- OCEAN ROUTES 164
VIII. EXPERIMENTAL IRON SHIPBUILDING -- _The Great Britain_ 193
IX. DEVELOPMENT OF IRON SHIPBUILDING -- _The Great Eastern_ 228
X. THE BUILDING OF STEEL SHIPS -- MODERN LINES -- TURBINES 279
XI. STEAM-POWER AND THE NAVY -- OTHER NAVIES 311
XII. MISCELLANEOUS: TUGS -- CARGO-BOATS -- FLOATING DOCKS, ETC.
-- ECCENTRICITIES OF DESIGN 341
BIBLIOGRAPHY 391
INDEX 395
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
PAGE
1. The _William Fawcett_, the first P. & O. Steam-ship;
with a Bomb Ketch and H.M.S. _St. Vincent_.
[_To face title-page_
From a painting by Charles Dixon; by kind permission of
the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co.
2. The _Chancellor Livingston_ _Headpiece to Preface_
From a drawing by W. T. Loveday
3. Primitive Paddle-boats 3
From Robertus Valturius, _De Re Militari_, 1472
4. “Barque à Roues”: Primitive Chinese Paddle-boat 5
Sketched from a drawing
5. “Liburna” or Galley, worked by Oxen 7
From Morisotus, _Orbis Maritimi Historia_, 1643
6. Jonathan Hulls’ Paddle-steamer, 1737 _To face_ 14
From the drawing in the Science Museum, South Kensington
7. The Marquis de Jouffroy’s Steamboat, 1783 _To face_ 16
From a copy of a French print published in 1816
8. John Fitch’s Oared Paddle-boat, 1786 22
From a contemporary drawing
9. John Stevens’ _Phœnix_, 1807 _To face_ 28
From a contemporary picture, by courtesy of E. A. Stevens,
Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
10. Robert Fulton’s _Clermont_, 1807 37
By courtesy of the _Shipping World_
11. The _Paragon_, built 1811 _To face_ 40
By courtesy of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
12. The _Philadelphia_, built 1826 _To face_ 44
From a contemporary picture, by courtesy of E. A. Stevens,
Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
13. The _De Witt Clinton_, built 1828 _To face_ 46
14. The _William Cutting_, built 1827 _To face_ 48
By courtesy of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
15. The _Mary Powell_ (Hudson River Day Line) 50
Sketched by E. Coffin from a photograph
16. The _Hendrick Hudson_ (Hudson River Day Line), 1906 _To face_ 50
Photograph by courtesy of the Hudson River Day Line
17. The _Robert Fulton_ (Hudson River Day Line), 1909 _To face_ 52
As the last
18. The _William M. Mills_ _To face_ 54
19. The _City of Cleveland_ _To face_ 54
Both by courtesy of the _Shipping World_
20. Patrick Miller’s Triple Boat the _Edinburgh_ _To face_ 56
From the engraving at South Kensington
21. Model of Miller’s Double Boat _To face_ 58
From the original at South Kensington
22. The _Charlotte Dundas_: longitudinal section 60
From a drawing
23. Symington’s Original Engine of 1788 _To face_ 60
Preserved at South Kensington
24. Model of the _Charlotte Dundas_ _To face_ 62
From the original at South Kensington
25. The Original Engines of the _Comet_ _To face_ 64
Preserved at South Kensington
26. The _Comet_, 1812 _To face_ 66
27. The _Industry_, 1814 _To face_ 68
Both by courtesy of the Institute of Marine Engineers, from the
lecture by J. H. Hulls, delivered Feb. 26, 1906
28. Plan and Lines of the _Comet_ _To face_ 70
29. The Engine of the _Leven_ _To face_ 70
Both by courtesy of Messrs. MacLehose and Sons and of the author,
from Captain Williamson’s “Clyde Passenger Steamers”
30. The _Sea-Horse_, about 1826 _To face_ 72
By courtesy of the Institute of Marine Engineers, from the
lecture by J. H. Hulls, delivered Feb. 26, 1906
31. The _Monarch_ and _Trident_, convoying the _Royal
George_ Yacht, with Queen Victoria and the Prince
Consort, to Edinburgh, August 1842 _To face_ 80
32. The _Trident_, in which the Queen and Prince Consort
returned, Sept. 1842 _To face_ 82
Both by courtesy of the General Steam Navigation Co.
33. The _Carron_ _To face_ 84
By courtesy of the Carron Co.
34. The _Kingfisher_ _To face_ 84
By kind permission of the General Steam Navigation Co.
35. The _Fingal_ _To face_ 86
By courtesy of the London and Edinburgh Shipping Co.
36. The _Lady Wolseley_ _To face_ 86
By courtesy of the British and Irish Steam Packet Co.
37. The _Ben-my-Chree_ (I.), built 1845 _To face_ 88
38. The _Tynwald_ (I.), built 1846 _To face_ 90
39. The _Mona’s Isle_ (II.), built 1860, as a paddle
steamer _To face_ 92
40. The _Ellan Vannin_ (the foregoing, altered to a
screw steamer and re-named, 1883) _To face_ 94
The last four illustrations by courtesy of the Isle of Man Steam
Packet Co.
41. The _Majestic_ _To face_ 96
From a photograph of a contemporary bill, by courtesy of J. W.
Little, Esq., of Little and Johnston
42. The _Lady Roberts_ _To face_ 98
By courtesy of the British and Irish Steam Packet Co.
43. The _Augusta_, 1856 100
By courtesy of F. H. Powell and Co., Liverpool
44. The Turbine Steamer _Marylebone_ (G.C. Railway) _To face_ 104
45. The _Cambria_ (L. & N.W. Railway) _To face_ 104
46. The Turbine Steamer _St. Patrick_ (G.W. Railway) _To face_ 114
47. The R.M. Turbine Steamer _Copenhagen_ (G.E.
Railway) _To face_ 116
48. The _Scotia_ (L. & N.W. Railway) _To face_ 120
The last five by courtesy of the respective companies
49. The _Savannah_ _To face_ 124
By kind permission of the _Master, Mate, and Pilot_
50. The _Rising Star_ 130
Drawing by E. Coffin from a very rare picture
51. The _Dieppe_ (L.B. & S.C. Railway) _To face_ 134
By permission of the Company
52. The _United Kingdom_ _To face_ 134
By courtesy of _Syren and Shipping_
53. The _Sirius_, from a print of 1837 _To face_ 140
54. The _Great Western_, from a print of 1837 _To face_ 142
Preserved at South Kensington
55. The _President_ 146
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
56. The _British Queen_ _To face_ 146
From an original oil-painting in the possession of the Author
57. The _Britannia_, 1840 _To face_ 152
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
58. The _Atlantic_ 156
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
59. The _Adriatic_ (Collins Line, 1857) _To face_ 160
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by A. J. Maginnis, by kind permission
of the publishers, Messrs. Whittaker and Co.
60. The _Earl of Hardwicke_ 168
61. The _Massachusetts_ 171
Both drawn by E. Coffin from contemporary pictures
62. The _Hindostan_, 1842 _To face_ 178
63. H.M. Troopship _Himalaya_ in Plymouth Sound _To face_ 180
Both from prints kindly supplied by the Peninsular and Oriental
Steam Navigation Co.
64. H.M. Troopship _Himalaya_ _To face_ 182
By courtesy of the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co.
65. The _Norman_ (Union-Castle Line, 1894) _To face_ 184
By permission of the _Engineer_
66. Maudslay’s Oscillating Engine _To face_ 200
From the original at the Science Museum, South Kensington
67. Model of the Engines of the _Leinster_ _To face_ 204
From the original at South Kensington
68. The _Pacific_ 205
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
69. Stevens’ 1804 Engine, showing Twin-screw Propellers _To face_ 208
By courtesy of E. A. Stevens, Esq., Hoboken, N.J.
70. The _Q.E.D._ 211
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
71. The _John Bowes_, launched 1852 _To face_ 214
72. The _John Bowes_, 1906 _To face_ 214
By courtesy of Palmer’s Shipbuilding and Iron Co.
73. The _Novelty_, built 1839 _To face_ 218
From the model at the Science Museum, South Kensington
74. The _Great Britain_ _To face_ 222
75. Engines of the _Great Britain_ _To face_ 224
From the models at South Kensington
76. The _Sarah Sands_, 1846 _To face_ 230
77. The _City of Glasgow_ (Inman Line, 1850) _To face_ 236
78. The _City of Rome_ (Inman Line, 1881) _To face_ 242
The last three from “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of
the publishers, as above
79. The _City of Chicago_ 244
Drawn from a contemporary print
80. The _Persia_ and _Scotia_ (Cunard, 1856 and 1862) _To face_ 244
81. The _China_ (Cunard, 1862) _To face_ 246
82. The _Russia_ (Cunard, 1867) _To face_ 246
The last three from “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of
the publishers, as above
83. Model of the _City of Paris_, 1866 _To face_ 248
From the original at South Kensington
84. The _Oregon_ (Cunard and Guion Lines, 1883) _To face_ 250
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
85. The _America_ (National Line, 1884) _To face_ 254
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
86. The _Delta_ leaving Marseilles for the opening of
the Suez Canal _To face_ 260
From a photograph kindly supplied by the P. & O. Co.
87. The _Thunder_ 265
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
88. Model of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 270
89. Longitudinal section of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 272
From the originals in the Science Museum, S. Kensington
90. Caricature of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 274
From a contemporary print
91. Model of the Paddle-engines of the _Great Eastern_ _To face_ 276
From the original at South Kensington
92. The _Britannic_ (White Star Line, 1874) _To face_ 280
By courtesy of the White Star Line
93. The _Umbria_ and _Etruria_ (Cunard) _To face_ 280
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
94. The _Mauretania_ (Cunard, 1907) _To face_ 282
By courtesy of the Cunard Co.
95. The _Campania_ (Cunard, 1892) _To face_ 282
From “The Atlantic Ferry,” by kind permission of the publishers,
as above
96. The _Teutonic_ and _Majestic_ (White Star Line,
1889) _To face_ 288
By courtesy of the White Star Line
97. The _Olympic_ (White Star Line, 1910) _To face_ 288
From the painting by Charles Dixon
98. The _Olympic_ building, October 18, 1909 _To face_ 290
By courtesy of the White Star Line
99. The _St. Louis_ (American Line) _To face_ 294
By courtesy of the American Line
100. The _Morea_ (P. & O. Line) _To face_ 294
By courtesy of the P. & O. Co.
101. The _Assiniboine_ (Canadian Pacific Railway Co.) _To face_ 300
By courtesy of the Canadian Pacific Railway Co.
102. The _Kronprinzessin Cecilie_ (Norddeutscher Lloyd) _To face_ 304
103. The _Kaiser Wilhelm II._ (Norddeutscher Lloyd) _To face_ 304
Photographs by G. West and Son
104. The _Turbinia_ _To face_ 308
Photographs by G. West and Son, and by courtesy of the Parsons
Marine Steam Turbine Co.
105. The _Otaki_ (New Zealand Shipping Co.) _To face_ 310
By courtesy of W. Denny and Sons
106. H.M.S. _Waterwitch_, armoured gunboat 321
Drawn by E. Coffin from a contemporary picture
107. H.M.S. _Minotaur_ _To face_ 326
By courtesy of the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co.
108. The _Koenig Wilhelm_, German Navy _To face_ 328
109. The _Baden_, German Navy _To face_ 328
110. H.M.S. _Devastation_ _To face_ 330
111. H.M.S. _Thunderer_ _To face_ 330
112. H.M.S. _Dreadnought_ _To face_ 332
113. H.M.S. _Lightning_, torpedo-boat _To face_ 334
114. H.M.S. _Tartar_, torpedo-boat _To face_ 334
115. H.M.S. _Lord Nelson_ _To face_ 336
116. H.M.S. _Invincible_, armoured cruiser _To face_ 336
The last nine from photographs by G. West and Son
117. The _Minas Geraes_, Brazilian battleship _To face_ 336
By special permission of the Brazilian Naval Commission, from a
photograph kindly supplied by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and
Co.
118. The _Kearsarge_, U.S. Navy _To face_ 340
119. The _San Francisco_, U.S. Navy _To face_ 340
Both from photographs by G. West and Son
120. The _Monitoria_ _To face_ 348
By courtesy of Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co.
121. The _Iroquois_ and _Navahoe_ _To face_ 348
By permission of the _Syren and Shipping_
122. The _Monitoria_, transverse section 350
By courtesy of Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co.
123. The old Floating Dock at Rotherhithe, _circa_ 1800 _To face_ 354
By courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
124. Model of the Bermuda Dock _To face_ 356
From the original at South Kensington
125. Self-docking of the Bermuda Dock (well heeled) _To face_ 358
126. Bermuda Dock: Centre Pontoon Self-docked _To face_ 358
127. Bolted Sectional Dock lifting a Vessel _To face_ 360
128. The Cartagena Dock _To face_ 362
The last four by courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
129. The _Baikal_ _To face_ 362
By courtesy of the _Magazine of Commerce_
130. The _Drottning Victoria_ _To face_ 366
From a photograph by Frank and Sons, by courtesy of the
_Shipbuilder_ and Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson
131. The _Ermack_ _To face_ 370
By courtesy of Sir W. G. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co.
132. The _Earl Grey_ _To face_ 370
By courtesy of the _Magazine of Commerce_
133. The Royal Yacht _Victoria and Albert_ _To face_ 372
134. The Imperial Yacht _Hohenzollern_ _To face_ 372
Photographs by G. West and Son
PLANS
135. The Evolution of Floating Docks, 1800-1910 389
By courtesy of Messrs. Clark and Standfield
CHAPTER I
PRIMITIVE EXPERIMENTS IN PROPULSION--SOME EARLY EXPERIMENTS WITH STEAM
Opinions are divided as to whether the paddle-wheel is a development
from the action of a man paddling a canoe, or the result of applying to
a vessel an ordinary wheel, with blades to make it bite the water; or
it may be stated thus: Did the paddle-blades grow out of the wheel, or
the wheel out of a number of paddle-blades? There is no satisfactory
evidence one way or the other; suffice it that the idea of revolving
paddles was developed.
How the power which caused the revolution of the paddles was applied
at first is as unknown as the identity of the man who first thought
of making navigation easier by mechanical means. It was probably
human power, as the first inventor can hardly have discovered how to
utilise animals for the purpose, and from what we know of primitive
expedients we may conjecture what the first contrivance used to urge
a boat onwards without sails or oars was like. The craft would be a
small one. Perhaps the proprietor was too poor to hire rowers. Perhaps,
a subtle financier, he realised that if he could bring his goods to a
certain place before rival shippers he would secure the market. Hence,
stimulated by poverty or cupidity or both, he reflected, experimented,
and finally invented the revolving paddle. But his apparatus was
probably nothing more than a smooth, straight branch or tree log, which
projected over either side of the boat and carried at each end paddles
fixed radially. He probably used two or four paddles, as it would be
easier to attach them to the axle in pairs. The radii of the paddles
consisted of two poles tied at right angles about the middle and there
fastened to the axle ends, rough-hewn boards or strips of bark being
attached at the extremities of the poles to form the paddle-blades.
The axle was doubtless kept in place either by pins in the gunwales
placed before and after it, or by bringing two of the ribs on either
side above the gunwale line and disposing the axle between them. In
many modern row-boats one or other of these plans is adopted for the
accommodation of the oars or sculls. This much being accomplished, it
only remained to apply the power. The inventor now passed a rope twice
round the middle of the axle, and tied the ends together. By hauling on
it he got all the power he was likely to require; to go astern he had
merely to pull the rope the other way. If more power was required more
men tugged at the rope.
When paddles were made larger to suit hulls of larger dimensions, it
may fairly be assumed that a winch turned by several men was used, and
that the power was transmitted to the axle of the paddle by means of an
endless rope. But soon it occurred to the shipowners that animals might
be used to produce the power instead of men. Horses or oxen were made
to drive a turntable or capstan, to work in a cage after the fashion
of white mice in their cylinders, or on a moving floor which imparted
its motion to an axle connected by an endless rope with the axle of
the paddle. Such boats, deriving their power from animals, were built
by the Romans, were in use in the early centuries of the Christian
era, and were not unknown in the nineteenth century in Britain and the
United States.
[Illustration: PRIMITIVE PADDLE-BOATS.
_From Valturius’ “De Re Militari,” 1472._]
One of the earliest authentic records of a vessel fitted with
paddle-wheels is to be found in Robertus Valturius’ “De Re Militari,”
published in 1472, wherein are pictures[2] of two boats, one of which
has five pairs of paddle-wheels, and the other one pair. Modern
engineers know by experience that if two wheels be placed one behind
another--and in the early days of steam navigation several boats were
equipped with two pairs of paddle-wheels--the hinder wheels, having to
work in disturbed and moving water, are practically useless. But at the
time of which Valturius writes the wheels were so small, the number
of revolutions were so few, and the propelling power they exerted so
slight, that no wheel was likely to have its efficiency much interfered
with by any number of wheels in front of it. The wheels had four
paddles each, and were revolved by cranks on their axles, the cranks of
the ten-wheeled boat being connected by a rope to give uniform action.
[2] The designs have been attributed to Matteo de’ Pasti, who lived at
the court of Malatesta (d. 1464).
In the Far East also, wheel-boats were in use long before steam-driven
paddle-wheels were invented. The Chinese certainly used them. In a
paper read at the Society of Arts in April 1858, Mr. John McGregor,
a barrister, who devoted considerable time to the study of early
mechanical appliances, stated that an old work on China contains a
sketch of a vessel moved by four paddle-wheels, and used perhaps in the
seventh century. In certain “Memoires” of the Jesuit Fathers at Peking,
published at Paris in 1782, there appears this quaint description of
a “barque à roues”: “This vessel is 42 feet in length and 13 feet in
width. The wheels are fixed in an empty space about a foot high situate
underneath the strip between the stout planks _a b_. From the axle
or centre of the wheels any number of spokes radiate which act like
teeth for the wheels. They enter the water to the depth of a foot. A
number of men make the wheels turn round. The length of the prow from
_l_ to _m_ is 8 feet. The length of the body of the vessel from _n_
to _o_ is 27 feet, and the length of the poop 7 feet. Heads of tigers
are represented on movable boards covered with leather, about 5 feet
in height and 2 feet wide. These boards shelter from the enemy the
soldiers who are behind them. They are removed when the crew decide
on boarding the enemy’s vessel.” The good Fathers in their “Memoires”
add a recommendation to experts in Paris to study the principle with a
view to its adoption in French vessels, and they point out that even if
the extra speed attained were ever so slight it might be sufficient to
bring a vessel out of a dangerous situation. It may well be doubted,
however, whether the shipping experts in Paris at that date profited
by this humanitarian suggestion. Be this as it may, the passage proves
that the propulsion of vessels by revolving wheels was not a western
idea only.
[Illustration: “BARQUE À ROUES,” PRIMITIVE CHINESE PADDLE-BOAT.]
Panciroli, writing in the sixteenth century, describes an
extraordinary boat of which he had seen a picture. His book is not
illustrated; but we find a representation of a _liburna_, or galley,
which exactly corresponds to Panciroli’s description,[3] in Morisotus’
(Claude Barthélemy Morisot) “Orbis Maritimi ... generalis Historia,”
published in 1643.
[3] “Vidi etiam effigiem Navium quarundam, quas Liburnas dicunt;
quæ ab utroque latere extrinsecus tres habebant rotas, aquam
attingentes: quarum quælibet octo constabat radiis, manus palmo e
rota prominentibus: intrinsecus vero sex boves machinam quandam
circumagendo rotas illas incitabant: et radii aquam retrorsum
pellentes, Liburnam tanto impetu ad cursum propellebant, ut
nulla triremis ei posset resistere.”--GUIDO PANCIROLI: _Rerum
memorabilium_, libri ii. Ambergæ, 1599.
The vessel, an Illyrian galley, had six wheels propelled by as many
oxen. The curious picture suggests an unwieldy, top-heavy concern which
could only be of use in still water, and would probably be safest in
shallow water, so that if anything happened the oxen and men could walk
ashore without trouble. The cattle apparently occupy most of the space,
an immense bird’s head with a hooked nose juts out in front immediately
above the water-line; this is of course the ram, above which is a
platform upon which a dog stands as the vessel’s figure-head.
It is unnecessary to go in detail into all the schemes devised by
inventors and visionaries for propelling vessels by mechanical means.
Several of them from time to time suggested placing wheels on the
outside of the boat, and “turning the wheeles by some provision so that
the wheeles make the boat goe,” to quote William Bourne’s proposition
of 1578, but the “some provision” constituted a problem which he and
many others found too much for them. David Ramsay in 1618 took out a
patent “to make boats for carriages running upon water as swift in
calms and more safe in storms than boats full sailed in great winds,”
and twelve years later another patent is recorded to his credit for
making ships and barges go against the tide. The optimism of these and
other mechanical pioneers was wonderful; indeed, had their inventive
genius only equalled their imagination, some of the difficulties
which until comparatively recently baffled naval engineers and marine
architects would have been long since overcome.
[Illustration: “LIBURNA” OR GALLEY, WORKED BY OXEN.
_From Morisotus._]
The webbed feet of water-birds suggested to many a form in which
mechanical propulsion could be applied. This was only natural, as
early shipbuilders took as their models the birds which they saw
floating before them. In 1759 a Swiss pastor named Genevois published
at Geneva a proposal to use an oar fitted with a foot which should
expand when used for propelling a boat and contract when being moved
forward through the water for another stroke. Genevois visited London
in 1760 to lay his proposal before the Government. His propellers were
to be worked by springs which in turn were to be compressed by a kind
of cannon with a piston. A pamphlet which he issued at the time of his
application to the Government contains the interesting statement that
he had been informed that a Scotchman had propounded a scheme thirty
years earlier for propelling vessels forward by the recoil from the
firing of cannon over the stern. The gunpowder of the period made up
in smoke what it lacked in power; hence, although the vessels of his
day were not large, the ingenious Scot “found, by the experiments
made for that purpose, that thirty barrels of Gun-powder had scarce
forwarded the ship the space of ten Miles”; and it is not surprising
that this means of mechanical propulsion shared the fate of all of its
predecessors.[4]
[4] “Some New Inquiries tending to the Improvement of Navigation,” by
J. A. Genevois, 1760.
Many other extravagant schemes might be quoted. Edward Ford in 1646 was
quite modest in his patent to “bring little ships, barges, and vessels
in and out of any havens without or against any small wind or tide,” to
which he cautiously added the qualification “if the seas be not rough.”
With the exception, however, of a few sporting proposals of which the
Scotch Gunpowder Plot is a type, no advance in solving the problem of
producing the power for propulsion was made for centuries. The burden
of physical exertion had been shifted from men to animals, but that was
all; and yet in every age during the last two thousand years there seem
to have been many people who were acquainted with the expansive power
of steam, a fact which makes this slow development the more remarkable.
The first person to observe the properties of steam, or at any rate
the first to record his observations, was Hero of Alexandria in 120
B.C., but though he advanced from theory to practice, his æolipile
does not seem to have answered any useful purpose. This machine
consisted of a hollow glass ball supplied with steam at its axis. The
steam escaped by means of a series of hollow tubes, placed at right
angles and projecting from the globe at a circle on its circumference
equidistant from the two poles, the tubes being closed at the ends and
provided with orifices at the sides near the ends. Nothing came of his
invention, so far as is known, and the æolipile remained an interesting
toy and nothing else--a toy, however, which has the honour of being
the first mechanical contrivance in which the expansive power of steam
was used. After this, for many centuries, no attempt was made to use
this great natural agency for the purpose of producing what Bacon
called “fruits” for mankind. Unscrupulous priests worked “miracles” by
this means for the edification of their flocks, and doubtless revived
thereby many whose faith had become lukewarm. It never seems to have
occurred to them that a far more direct means of moving mountains was
already under their control.
At last in 1629 the use of steam as a means of producing power was
suggested by Giovanni Branca of Loretto, who, apparently adopting a
simplified form of Hero’s device, planned so that a jet of steam blew
against a series of vanes arranged on the rim of a wheel.
In the seventeenth century also, that eccentric genius the second
Marquis of Worcester published his “Century of Inventions.” In this he
suggested a number of mechanical contrivances, some of which contained
the fundamental ideas of later inventions, the most notable being that
of a steam-engine with a piston and lever; but he does not seem to have
designed any vessel which would justify the claim sometimes made on his
behalf that he was the inventor of the steamboat.[5]
[5] Partington’s edition of the “Century of Inventions.”
About the same time, Sir S. Morland, another experimenter, estimated
the expansive force of water at 2000 times, in which he was not far
from the truth.
England, however, was not the only country to produce inventors. One
Blasco de Garay, who flourished a hundred years before the Marquis of
Worcester, is declared by his champions to have been the first to solve
the problem of propelling a vessel by steam-power. But investigations
as to the accuracy of the story tend to the belief that he did nothing
of the kind, and that the beautifully circumstantial account of his
experiment does greater credit to the imagination of the narrator
than to his regard for accuracy.[6] De Garay’s experiment was made
at Barcelona in the year 1543 in the presence of representatives of
the Emperor Charles V. Ravago, the Treasurer, reported to the Emperor
that the vessel would go two leagues in three hours, but that the
machine was complex and expensive, and that the cauldron in which the
steam was generated might burst. This is exactly the report which a
cautious financier, presumably not an expert in mechanics, might be
expected to make. Other reports were more favourable to the project,
the commissioners appointed for the purpose ascribing to the vessel a
speed of a league an hour. What has been established beyond question,
however, is that De Garay made the experiment with a boat fitted with
paddle-wheels, but that the wheels were turned by men and not by steam.
[6] Mr. John McGregor reported to the Society of Arts that the claim
that De Garay used a steam-engine is unfounded, human power being
used.
Salomon de Caus, a native of Normandy, is sometimes claimed by French
writers to have first thought of using steam as a motive power in 1615,
but his invention does not seem to have fructified. Half a century
later the unlucky Doctor Denis Papin, a native of Blois, entered the
field of invention. He came to this country from France in 1675, was
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1681, and in 1690 described
a steam cylinder fitted with a piston which descended by atmospheric
pressure when the steam below it was condensed. He suggested that one
of the uses to which his engine might be put was the revolution of
paddle-wheels fitted to a ship, several cylinders being applied which
worked alternately with the rackwork he designed. He may have been
led to this by witnessing in 1681 the experiments on the Thames with
a boat designed by Rupert, the Prince Palatine, with revolving fans,
which easily left behind a boat manned by a number of oarsmen. It has
been claimed for Papin that he was the inventor of the safety-valve,
but this is disputed.[7] Prior, however, to his atmospheric engine
he brought out in 1685 a machine for raising or pumping water, but
the Royal Society treated it with contempt and referred to it as
a “mere trick.” Neither of his machines received the recognition
which historians have since decided was their due, and he went back
disheartened to France, whence he was driven by the Revocation of
the Edict of Nantes to Marburg. He reappeared in England in 1707 and
announced a project for moving ships by means of wheels and steam.
Unfortunately for him, Thomas Savery, born in 1658, had already been at
work on the problem, and had brought out his fire-engine, which among
other things he thought might be used to propel ships. His machine
lacked power, and was replaced by one made after the design of his
partner Newcomen. Papin was also associated with Newcomen and Savery
at one time. Savery says of his own machine that he would refer the
question of its suitability for shipping to those more competent than
himself to judge. Papin appealed to the Naval Department to consider
his invention, but the Government of the day, after the manner of
Governments when face to face with a new project, thought it useless,
and made severe remarks on his presumption in continuing to invent for
them. He exhibited his invention on the Thames, but no one took any
interest in it. Thoroughly disheartened by the failures which attended
all his efforts, Papin went to Germany, and is stated to have there
built a steamer which was actually tried on the Fulda or the Weser, but
the local watermen, fearing the rivalry of the new machine, smashed
it, and that is the last which history has to record of Papin as a
pioneer of steamboats. It is asserted that this boat was built for
him by Newcomen and Savery in this country. As an experimenter he did
valuable work, for he seems to have been the first to have grasped the
importance of the vacuum under the piston.[8]
[7] Hy. Frith’s “Triumphs of Steam.”
[8] Lindsay’s “History of Merchant Shipping.”
In 1730 another remarkable proposition was made for marine propulsion.
Doctor John Allen thought it possible to move a boat by pumping in
water at the bows and pumping it out again at the stern, this scheme
being probably the earliest attempt to secure motion by what has
since become known as the jet-propeller system. Like almost all other
inventions of his period it was crude in its details and does not seem
to have been put to any practical use.
The next inventor who turned his attention to the question was Jonathan
Hulls, for whom it has been claimed, with some show of justification,
that he was the actual inventor of the steamboat. That he did invent a
steamboat is beyond question, but whether his vessel was ever built,
and if so whether it attained any measure of success, are points upon
which historical evidence is not conclusive. But if it was constructed,
and there is strong circumstantial evidence in support of this
contention, then to the West of England, which has contributed so
largely to the maritime glory of Britain, must be ascribed also the
honour of being the birthplace of one of the two inventions which have
done more than anything else to aid in the spread of civilisation and
commerce. Hulls was born at Aston Magna in 1699. By occupation he was
a clock repairer, a precarious trade at best. The difficulties he had
to encounter through lack of means were very great, but he persevered,
and a patron at last appeared in the person of a Mr. Freeman, of
Batsford Park, near Chipping Campden, who supplied him with about £160
to develop and patent his invention. This enabled Hulls to proceed to
London, and he petitioned Queen Caroline, as Guardian of the Realm in
the absence of her Consort George II. at Hanover, for Letters Patent
for the invention, which was accordingly granted to him December 21,
1736, provided he enrolled in Chancery within the following three
months a specification describing his invention.[9] The patent read as
follows:
“Whereas our Trusty and Well Beloved Jonathan Hulls hath by his
petition humbly represented unto Our most dearly beloved Consort
the Queen.... That he hath with much Labour and Study, and at Great
Expense Invented and Formed a machine for carrying Ships and Vessels
out of or into any Harbour, &c., which the Petitioner apprehends
may be of great service to our Royal Navy and Merchant Ships, and
to Boats and other Vessels, of which Machine the Petitioner hath
made oath that he is the sole inventor, as by affidavit to his said
petition annexed.
“Know ye therefore that we of our special grace, have given and
granted to the said Jonathan Hulls our special license, full power,
sole privilege and authority during the term of fourteen years, and
he shall lawfully make use of the same for carrying ships and other
vessels out to sea, or into any harbour or river.
“In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made
patent.
“(Witness) CAROLINE,
“Queen of Great Britain.
“Given by right of Privy Seal at Westminster this 21st day of
December 1736.”[10]
[9] Mr. J. H. Hulls’ lecture at the Institute of Marine Engineers on
“The Introduction of Steam Navigation,” February 26, 1906.
[10] From copy of patent in possession of Mr. J. H. Hulls.
Mr. P. C. Rushen, in referring to the experiment, writes:
“About this time it may be presumed that Jonathan set about
constructing a vessel in accordance with his plans, and for this
purpose he had the help of the Eagle Foundry at Birmingham, to which
he forwarded rough model plans and sketches to aid in founding and
forging the various parts. Until quite recent years these relics were
existent, but on the sale and demolition of the foundry they seem to
have been destroyed.
“The new vessel was tried on the Avon, but tradition says it was a
failure, by reason of the inventor not providing the proper means
to communicate the power to the paddle. That the experiment was a
failure seems evident from the fact that nothing more was heard of
the boat, but for the given reason is very improbable, because the
very ingenious means the inventor describes, although perhaps not
quite practical on a large scale, are not palpably unworkable for a
small experimental boat. Even if these means were a failure, it would
be ridiculous to suppose that a clever mechanic such as Hulls shows
himself to be in his pamphlet would be at a loss for some expedient.
[Illustration: JONATHAN HULLS’ PADDLE STEAMER, 1737.]
“The more probable reason of Hulls’ failure was the want of financial
support, that previously accorded him being perhaps withdrawn on the
first hitch in the experiments, or for some other reason, this so
disheartening him that he relinquished the idea. While Hulls had been
at work on his project, he had worn a brown paper cap, as usual with
mechanics at that time, and this fact was taken advantage of in a
scathing doggerel, which was circulated upon his failure, and which
ran:
“Jonathan Hull
With his paper skull;
Tried to make a Machine
To go against wind and tide,
But he, like an ass,
Couldn’t bring it to pass
So at last was ashamed to be seen.”[11]
[11] P. C. Rushen’s “History and Antiquities of Chipping Campden in
the County of Gloucester,” 1899.
The engine which Hulls used was an adaptation of Newcomen’s. He
published a lengthy description of his boat, in which he states that,
in his opinion, it would not be practicable to place his machine on
anything but a tow-boat, as it would take up too much room to allow of
other goods being carried on the same vessel, and it could “not be used
in a storm, or when the waves are very raging.” Hulls died in London
destitute, and the world inherited his ideas. Steam tow-boats are now
found all over the world, and the despised stern-wheeler of his day was
the forerunner of the great stern-wheelers of the Mississippi.
Another person who took up the subject seriously was a Frenchman,
Jouffroy d’Abbans, better known perhaps as Claude François Dorothée,
Marquis de Jouffroy. His invention was known as the Pyroscaphe. It was
claimed for him by the Marquis de Bausset-Roquefort that “he was the
first who carried out in practice a scheme for navigation by steam,
his successful experiments on the Saône at Lyons in 1783 being attested
by official documents, and by the evidence of thousands of spectators.
The glory of the invention of the means of using steam-power in
navigation belongs therefore to France, as is clearly shown by the
archives of the town of Lyons.”
The Marquis de Jouffroy was born at Roche-sur-Rognon in 1751. A duel
fought while he was page to the Dauphin caused his exile to Provence,
where he studied the methods by which the ancient rowing galleys
were propelled. He returned to Paris in 1775 and conceived the idea
of inventing some form of steamboat while looking at the Chaillot
fire-pump which Périer[12] had erected a short time previously. He
communicated his project to Périer, who made some fruitless experiments
and declared the idea impossible. Jouffroy, however, persevered, and in
1776 had constructed a machine which he adapted for use on a boat. “His
first pyroscaphe was 13 m. long, and 1 m. 95 c. wide. The ‘swimming’
apparatus consisted of rods 2 m. 66 c. in length suspended on either
side well forward and carrying at their extremity frames fitted with
hinged flaps with a dip of 50 c. The frames were capable of describing
an arc of 2 m. 66 c. (8 feet) radius and of 1 m. (3 feet) in length,
and were drawn forward at the end of the stroke by a counterweight. A
single-acting engine by Watt, installed in the middle of the boat, set
in action these hinged flaps. The construction of this apparatus in a
locality where it was impossible to obtain a cast and bored cylinder
was a work of genius, courage, and patience. Despite its imperfections
it was superior to anything attempted up to that time in navigation.
The boat worked on the Doubs at Baume-les-Dames between Montbéliard and
Besançon during the months of June and July.” This system, since called
the “Palmipède,” imitated the movements of aquatic birds, and was the
only one that could be applied to the steam-engine as then known. It
was, however, useless for moving large masses or for working against
the current. “Jouffroy saw the defects caused by the fact that the
rapidity of the boat’s motion prevented the hinged flaps from reopening
after the forward stroke, especially when the pyroscaphe was moving
upstream or against the tide. Hence the engine only acted at intervals
instead of keeping up a sustained movement. But Jouffroy substituted
paddle-wheels for the hinged flaps (_volets à charnière_) and devised
a new machine in which the action of the steam was made continuous by
means of two bronze cylinders, the top placed lengthwise with the run
of the ship, making with the horizon an angle of about 50 degrees.
The bottoms of the cylinders were encased in a metal box containing a
sliding tile which opened and shut, alternately giving a passage to the
steam and the intake of water in each cylinder.
[12] The name is spelt “Perrier” by some writers.
[Illustration: THE MARQUIS DE JOUFFROY’S STEAMBOAT. 1783.]
“By July 1, 1783, Jouffroy had constructed a second boat which was
launched at Lyons. Its dimensions were considerable, the length
attaining 46 m. and the breadth 4 m. 50 c. The wheels were 4 m.
diameter, the paddles 1 m. 95 c., dipping 65 c. The draught of water
of the vessel was 95 c. The total weight was 327 milliers, of which
27 were for the vessel and 300 for the freight. This enormous vessel
voyaged against the tide of the Saône from Lyons to L’île Barbe in the
presence of the Commission de Savants and thousands of spectators, as
officially recorded in the archives of the Municipality of Lyons.”
Arago says this vessel continued to navigate the Saône for sixteen
months.[13]
[13] Paper read by the Marquis de Bausset-Roquefort before the Lyons
Literary Society in 1864, and preserved at the Mazarin Library
(Academy of Sciences), Paris.
Jouffroy now thought of starting a company to run boats on the new
system, and applied to the Government for the necessary permission.
The question was submitted to the Academy of Sciences, who appointed
a Commission to inquire into the matter, but among the members of the
Commission was the unsuccessful Périer, whose opposition resulted in
the Academy concluding that the experiments at Lyons were not decisive.
The Marquis had not the means to continue building steamboats and,
profoundly discouraged, he abandoned the rôle of inventor. He had
already been subjected to much ridicule, and it was generally agreed
that he must be mad to think of “making fire and water agree”; he was
even nicknamed “Pump Jouffroy.” He witnessed the experiments of Fulton
in France, but did not think of claiming the merit of his discovery
until 1816, when he issued a publication entitled “Steamboats.” The
same year he took out a patent, formed a company, and on August 20
launched a steamboat at Bercy, but the venture did not come up to
the expectations of the shareholders, and this was his last effort.
Jouffroy died of cholera at the Hôpital des Invalides in 1832. Arago,
the historian, says that his claims to be the first inventor of
the steamboat have been established, and, according to Larousse’s
“Dictionnaire universel du XIX^e siècle,” Fulton himself openly
acknowledged them in the United States law courts.
CHAPTER II
AMERICAN PIONEERS IN STEAM NAVIGATION
Towards the end of the eighteenth century American inventors turned
their attention to the problem of navigation by steam, and to one
of them, Robert Fulton, the credit of having invented the steamboat
has usually been given. Livingston’s “Historical Account of the
Application of Steam for the Propelling of Boats” has been accepted
as an authority on the subject, but as he was Fulton’s friend and
backer, and Fulton married into the Livingston family, there is reason
to question the absolute accuracy of the circumstantial story told by
this most eloquent special pleader, though there is some excuse for his
partiality. A little investigation makes it apparent that Fulton was
not the first American to design a successful steamboat, nor even the
first to make the running of steamboats a satisfactory speculation.
In 1909 a Mr. John Moray of West Virginia presented a petition to
Congress in which he asked for the official recognition of James Rumsay
as the inventor of the steamboat, and the perpetuation of his memory by
the placing of an appropriate bust in the Statuary Hall at the Capitol.
According to the petition “The deed-books of Berkeley County, Va., for
the year 1782 record the fact that James Rumsay, a native of Maryland,
who was a millwright and Revolutionary soldier, purchased a farm,
and soon after a pond, for experimental purposes in the line of his
calling. On that pond, as the results of many experiments in steam and
hydrostatics by James Rumsay, the wonderful discovery of the principle
of steam navigation took place. Thoroughly satisfied by continuous
experiments that the newly discovered principle would become of
immense value in the world, Rumsay contracted with his brother-in-law,
Joseph Barnes, for the building of a boat for steam purposes at St.
John’s Run, on the Potomac River. The resulting steamboat was publicly
exhibited at Shepherdstown, Va., on the Potomac, on December 3 and 11,
1787. The great success and useful character of Rumsay’s steamboat were
established by sworn testimony of many notable witnesses, including
General Horatio Gates, conqueror of Burgoyne, and by a multitude of
astonished and delighted spectators. This practically successful trial
took place twenty years before the Hudson River trial in 1807, and the
speed of Rumsay’s boat was fully equal to that of the _Clermont_ in its
initial trip to Albany--four miles an hour--without sails, paddles, and
the complexities of the Hudson River boat.”
Rumsay afterwards launched on the Potomac a boat propelled by a
steam-engine and machinery, both of which were of his own construction.
His method of propelling the boat was to force out a stream of water
at the stern, a system known as the “Jet,” which has never commended
itself to engineers in general, owing to the friction caused in the
pipes by the water rushing through them. A trial trip, in December
1787, was successfully made in the presence of a great number of
spectators, and resulted in Rumsay being granted the right to navigate
the streams of New York, Maryland, and Virginia. His scheme was taken
up by an organisation formed in Philadelphia for that purpose, and
known as the Rumsay Society. Benjamin Franklin was among its members.
Rumsay also visited England and the Continent, and obtained patents for
his invention in Great Britain, France, and Holland, but he did not
live long enough to develop his schemes. He made a successful trip on
the Thames in 1792, and died in London the same year.
His great rival was John Fitch, who, in 1785, conceived the idea of
using steam-power for land carriages and afterwards for vessels. His
first model of a steamer carried large wheels at the sides, but these
were found to labour too much in the water, and in his experiments
in July 1786 upon a skiff with a steam-engine having a three-inch
cylinder, the wheels were replaced by paddles or oars supported by
a framework above the vessel. Convinced of the success which must
ultimately attend the use of steam-power, he petitioned Congress and
the State Legislature for a grant of money, but without avail. As a
result of his efforts to interest “the leading scientific and public
men of that day, everywhere and at all times,” and his bold advocacy
of the adoption of steam for purposes of navigation, he was generally
considered insane. But in 1786 he succeeded in persuading the State
of New Jersey to grant him for fourteen years the sole and exclusive
right to navigate its waters by steam, and this example was followed in
1787 by the States of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
He had earned some money by map-making, and now formed a company and
built a boat of 60 tons. She was 45 feet long with a beam of 12 feet,
had six oars or paddles on each side, and carried an engine with a
12-inch cylinder. She made a successful trial trip at Philadelphia in
1787. A still larger boat followed in 1788, and another in 1790. The
latter demonstrated “with their increased speed and facility the value
of Fitch’s invention,” and the last was run during the summer as a
passenger boat between Philadelphia and Burlington at a speed of about
eight miles an hour. She appears, from an illustration in Appleton’s
“Cyclopædia of American Biography,” to have had three large paddles
at the stern held in place by a projecting frame, a cross-beam at the
extreme end of the frame supporting the rudder, which was placed a
little distance behind the paddles. Consequent upon the Virginia patent
which gave him the exclusive right of navigating “the Ohio River and
its tributaries” he now designed a boat called the _Perseverance_, for
freight and passengers on the Mississippi. But as, owing to a storm,
she could not be got ready in time, the default clause in the patent
became operative. Fitch’s associates now left him and his own resources
were at an end, and after one or two other misfortunes he went to
France in 1793. Needless to say, that country was in no mood then to
entertain the idea of building steamboats. Finding no one ready to
listen to his schemes, Fitch departed for London, having deposited his
plans and specifications with the American Consul at Lorient.
[Illustration: JOHN FITCH’S OARED PADDLE BOAT, 1786.]
A rather curious thing then happened.
“During this absence his (Fitch’s) drawings and papers were loaned by
the Consul to Robert Fulton, then in Paris, in whose possession they
were for several months.”[14] Until now, it must be remembered, Fulton
had scarcely been heard of in connection with steamboats.
[14] Appleton’s “Cyclopædia.”
Meantime the ill-starred Fitch, unable to gain a hearing in England
either, worked his passage back to America as a common sailor. In 1796,
still determined to convince the public of the need for steamboats,
he obtained a ship’s yawl, and fitted her with an engine and
screw-propeller. With these he experimented in New York and, as usual,
no one took any interest in the boat except the proprietor. In 1798 he
made and tried upon a small stream near Bardstown a steamboat model
measuring three feet in length, but a few weeks later he committed
suicide by taking poison. His “Journal” contains the following passage:
“The day will come when some more powerful man will get fame and riches
from _my_ invention, but nobody will believe that poor John Fitch can
do anything worthy of attention.”
About twenty years later Fitch’s merits as an inventor were recognised
by a Committee of the New York Legislature, which reported that “the
steamboats built by Livingston and Fulton were in substance the
invention patented to John Fitch in 1791, and Fitch during the term
of his patent had the exclusive right to use the same in the United
States.”
Other inventors were at work. Fulton was in France thinking over the
Fitch drawings which had been left there in 1793, trying a submarine
boat on the Seine, and in 1801 making a variety of experiments under
the auspices of the French Government.
In America, one Samuel Morey, in 1790, built a strange boat with a
paddle-wheel in the prow, constructed a steam-engine for her, and
presently was voyaging on the Connecticut River at the break-neck speed
of four miles an hour. A few years later he had another boat ready
which could do five miles an hour, this boat having a wheel at the
stern, and by request he took Chancellor R. Livingston and others for a
trip in New York waters. The Chancellor, who had made a trip in Morey’s
first boat at Orford, perceived two things, first, that the speed ought
to be increased, and, second, that there was money in steamboats. He
promised Morey 100,000 dollars, it is believed, if he could run a boat
at eight miles an hour, and offered him 7000 dollars for a patent for
the North River as far as Amboy for what had already been accomplished.
The latter offer was not accepted. Morey in 1795 took out a patent for
a steam-engine, in which the power was to be applied by crank motion,
to propel boats of any size. Two years later he built a steamer
which he placed on the Delaware, and propelled it by means of two
paddle-wheels, one on either side. These wheels gave better results
than any method which had yet been tried.
When, a little later, Livingston went to France and became associated
with Fulton as the financier of his enterprises, it is probable that
the knowledge the former had gained of Morey’s work and Roosevelt’s
experiments, and the latter of Fitch’s designs, proved extremely useful
to both of them. Nicholas J. Roosevelt had attracted some attention by
building a small wooden boat across which was an axle projecting over
the sides, and carrying paddles, the contrivance being made to revolve
by a light cord wound round the middle of the machine and attached to
hickory and whalebone springs. In 1798 he recommended to Livingston a
vertical wheel, and the Chancellor replied, “Vertical wheels are out of
the question.” As late as 1802 Fulton favoured chains and floats, and
it was not until after Livingston had communicated Roosevelt’s plan to
him that they applied vertical wheels on Roosevelt’s system to their
boat on the Seine.
About this time also Livingston was engaged with John Stevens, his
brother-in-law, and Nicholas J. Roosevelt on the construction of a
steamboat to be used on the Hudson, the New York State Legislature
having granted the necessary monopoly. The State required that the
boat should attain a speed of three miles an hour, but this was not
achieved. Livingston was appointed Minister to France in 1801, and was
thus cut off from his two partners and brought into communication with
Fulton. Another version is that the boat made three miles an hour, and
that the State stipulated for four miles an hour.
Robert Fulton, asserted to be an Irishman by descent, was born in
Pennsylvania in 1765. When a boy he had witnessed the experiments made
on the Delaware by John Fitch, but the problems of steam navigation
were only a few of those which occupied his versatile genius. He came
to England in 1786, and in 1794 invented a marble-sawing machine,
a flax-spinning machine, a machine for ropemaking and a mechanical
dredger. In 1795 he published a treatise on canal navigation in which
he suggested a number of improvements in lock construction.
In 1797 he went to France and was for some time occupied in designing
and experimenting with submarine boats. He suggested to the French
Government that his submarine would be useful in destroying the British
Fleet. The Directory would have nothing to do with his plans, but when
Napoleon became First Consul a Commission was appointed to investigate
and report upon them. Beyond agitating the British Government for some
time, however, while he experimented with torpedoes designed to destroy
their fleet, and trying unsuccessfully to sell his invention to the
French Government, nothing was accomplished. He came over to England in
1804 prepared to sell his invention to the British Government. From one
point of view Fulton appears as the inventor of a horrible engine of
destruction, ready to dispose of it to any country which would buy at a
remunerative price.
But there is another aspect of Fulton, and this is exhibited by his
enthusiastic biographer Cadwallader D. Colden. According to this
gentleman, Fulton took no interest “in the then existing contest”
between England and France. England and France were to him possible
torpedo buyers and their fleets possible torpedo victims. But his
ideals included universal free trade and the liberty of the seas, and
he looked upon the annihilation of naval armaments as a step in the
right direction, as it would destroy what he called the war system of
Europe. If this could be effected nations would engage in education,
science, and a rivalry of peaceful arts.
Fulton has been called a prophet and a statesman; but the doctrine
that warfare will be ended by elaborating a more deadly means of
destruction than has hitherto been known, coupled with the implied
assertion that each invention is the last word in destruction, suggests
at once conspicuous limitations in prophecy and statecraft. He never
thought of torpedo destroyers.
In 1793 Fulton corresponded with Lord Stanhope on the subject of steam
navigation. Lord Stanhope was fully aware that invention was knocking
at the door, for in a letter to Wilberforce he says: “This country is
vulnerable in so many ways, the picture is horrid.... I know, and in a
few weeks I shall prove, that ships of any size may be navigated so as
to go without wind and even directly against both wind and waves....
The most important consequence which I draw from this stupendous fact
is this. It will shortly render all the navies of the world (I mean
military navies) no better than lumber. For what can ships do that
are dependent on wind and weather against fleets that are wholly
independent of either? Therefore the boasted superiority of the British
Navy is no more. We must have a new one. The French and other nations
will for the same reasons have the same.”
He was himself an experimenter, and had been endeavouring to propel a
boat by means of an appliance resembling a mechanical duck’s foot. The
plans which Fulton submitted to him show a boat with an immense bow
or spring fastened to a stumpy mast amidships, operating on a large
paddle for which the rail at the extreme end of a raking stern acted as
a fulcrum; a second plan shows the boat with a three-paddle revolving
wheel at the side.
When Livingston went to France in 1801, an enthusiast for steam
navigation, and, what was more important, an enthusiast of considerable
means, Fulton, whom he there met and financed, was stimulated to fresh
exertions. By 1803 a boat to their joint account was built, 70 feet
long and 8 feet beam. With this it was proposed to experiment on the
Seine. But the machinery, which is said to have been made by Périer,
who opposed the Marquis de Jouffroy, was too heavy for the hull.
The night before the trial trip was to be made was stormy: the boat
broke in half and sank. Notwithstanding this blow to their hopes the
partners proceeded with their attempts. The machinery was recovered
and found to be practically uninjured, and the hull was rebuilt more
strongly. The trial trip took place in August 1803, when the boat made
four and a half miles an hour. This was a very moderate speed and was
disappointing to all concerned. Nevertheless a voyage by a steam-ship
had been made, and it is strange that very little notice was taken of
the event in France. Livingston wrote home to America and described
it enthusiastically, and he and Fulton determined to build a boat for
American waters as soon as Fulton should return thither.
Shortly after this experiment Fulton visited Symington, who, as will
be seen in the next chapter, had succeeded, with the assistance of
Lord Dundas, in starting a little steamer, the _Charlotte Dundas_,
on the Clyde as early as 1802. While this boat was being used on the
Forth and Clyde Canal, Fulton introduced himself to Symington, whom
he accompanied on a trip in the boat, the voyage being made solely on
Fulton’s account.[15] The American took copious notes in a memorandum
book and, to quote from Symington’s narrative, “after putting several
pointed questions respecting the general construction and effect of
the machine, which I answered in a most explicit manner, he jotted
down particularly everything then described, with his own remarks upon
the boat while moving with him on board along the canal; but he seems
to have been altogether forgetful of this, as notwithstanding his
fair promises, I never heard anything more of him until reading in a
newspaper an account of his death.”
[15] Knight’s “Cyclopædia.”
[Illustration: JOHN STEVENS’ “PHŒNIX,” 1807.]
Meantime Stevens, left to himself, had, in 1804, built a vessel
propelled by twin screws which navigated the Hudson River. This vessel
was remarkable in many ways. The boiler was tubular, and the screw was
almost identical with the short four-threaded helix which many years
afterwards was generally adopted. It is interesting to note that the
screw propeller was tried so early, for it is generally believed that
it was not used at all until many years after the introduction of
paddles. The engine and boiler of Stevens’ boat are preserved at the
Stevens Institute at Hoboken. After his death his son tried the engine
and boiler in a boat, which, in the presence of a committee of the
American Institute of New York, attained a speed of about nine miles
an hour. Although the screw proved its suitability for propulsion, its
superiority was not acknowledged, and for many years afterwards marine
engineers confined their attention to the improvement of paddle-wheels
and the engines for driving them. In 1807, with the assistance of his
son Robert, Stevens built the paddle-wheel steamer _Phœnix_, which
plied for six years on the Delaware.
Dr. James Renwick of Columbia said that “the Stevenses were but a
few days later” than Fulton “in moving a boat with the required
velocity,” and that “being shut out of the waters of New York by the
monopoly of Livingston and Fulton, Stevens conceived the bold design
of conveying his boat, the _Phœnix_, to the Delaware by sea, and this
boat, which was so near reaping the honour of first success, was the
first to navigate the ocean by the power of steam.” The piston-rod of
the _Phœnix_ was guided by slides instead of the parallel motion of
the Watt engine, and the cylinder rested on the condenser. A point in
which the superiority of the _Phœnix_ over the _Clermont_ was shown,
was that the paddle-wheel of the _Phœnix_ had a guard beam, which the
_Clermont_ lacked. The _Phœnix_ was taken to Philadelphia by sea by
Robert Livingston Stevens, son of Robert Stevens. He was accompanied
on this voyage by Moses Rogers, to whom the title of “Pioneer Steam
Navigator” has been given by American historians, partly on account of
this voyage and partly because he was on board the auxiliary sailing
ship _Savannah_ on her memorable voyage to Europe.[16]
[16] See p. 122.
In 1806 Fulton returned to America, having ordered an engine to be made
by Messrs. Boulton and Watt at Birmingham. He did not tell them what he
proposed to do with it, but it was the engine for the first steamboat
constructed by him for American voyages--the famous _Clermont_. After
this engine was delivered in New York it remained in the Customs while
Brownne, a shipbuilder, constructed the hull. In 1807 the boat made her
first trip on the Hudson.
The original dimensions of the _Clermont_ have been variously stated,
the discrepancies being probably due to the alterations to which the
vessel was subjected, and also to methods of measurement. From a letter
which Fulton wrote it appears that the boat was 150 feet long and 13
feet wide, drawing 2 feet of water.[17] This was no doubt the over-all
figure, as other data give slightly less lengths which would be on the
water-line, or the inside measurements between stem and stern, both of
which raked.
[17] Reprinted in the _Nautical Gazette_, New York, August 22, 1907.
Messrs. Millard and Kirby, of New York, who made most exhaustive
researches into the history of the _Clermont_ with a view to the
reproduction of that historical vessel at the centenary celebration
at New York in September 1909, state that when Fulton worked out
his displacement and wetted surface and resistance, his results
corresponded with a boat of the dimensions just given, and no other
figures could have given those results.
On November 20, 1807, Fulton wrote to Livingston that the boat was
so weak that she must have additional knees and timbers, new side
timbers, deck beams and deck, new windows, and cabins altered; that
she, perhaps, must be sheathed, her boiler taken out and a new one put
in, her axles forged and ironwork strengthened. With all this work
the saving of the hull would be of little consequence, particularly
as many of her knees, bolts, timbers and planks could be used in the
construction of a new boat. His opinion, therefore, was that a new hull
should be built with knees and floor timbers of oak, bottom planks of
two-inch oak and side planks of two-inch oak for 3 feet high. “She is
to be 16 feet wide, 150 feet long; this will make her near twice as
stiff as at present and enable us to carry a much greater quantity of
sail. The 4 feet additional width will require 1146 lb. additional
purchase at the engine, moving 2 feet a second or 15 double strokes a
minute; this will be gained by raising the steam 5 lb. to the inch, as
24 inches the diameter of the cylinder gives 570 round inches at 3 lb.
to the inch--1710 lb. purchase gained. To accomplish this work a good
boiler and a commodious boat running our present speed, of a voyage in
30 hours, I think better and more productive to us than to gain one
mile on the present boat.”
The first _Clermont_ had a depth of hold of 7 feet. She had masts and
sails but no wheel enclosures, no bulwarks, no berths in the cabin,
and no covering over the boilers; this work being done, according to
Fulton’s letter of August 29, 1807, after his return from the first
trip. When she was altered on account of instability, in the winter
1807-8, she was widened to 16 feet on the bottom and 18 feet at the
deck, which made her much stiffer. It was then that her poop was built
up and various other improvements made.
Her fly-wheels were outside the hull, placed forward of the paddles,
and revolved the same way, and it is related that on a subsequent
voyage one of the paddle-wheels becoming disabled, paddles were affixed
to the fly-wheel and the voyage resumed.
The _American Citizen_ of August 17, 1807, announced that: “Mr.
Fulton’s ingenious Steamboat, invented with a View to the Navigation of
The Mississippi from New Orleans upwards, Sails to-day from the North
River near The State Prison to Albany, the Velosity of the Steamboat
is calculated at four miles an hour; it is said that it will make a
progress of two against The Current of The Mississippi, and if so it
will certainly be a very valuable acquisition to the Commerce of the
Western States.”
An immense crowd assembled to witness the fiasco which was expected
to mark the first experimental voyage of “Fulton’s Folly,” and jeered
Fulton and his steamer unmercifully. But when the vessel moved into
midstream under the power of her own engines, the crowd cheered as
energetically as only a crowd can when it has been agreeably surprised
and the appeal of facts to its chivalry is irresistible.
“Dense volumes of smoke began to pour forth from the smokestack. The
boiler began to hiss. At one o’clock the hawser was drawn in, the
throttle opened, and to the accompaniment of the stertorous exhaust,
the uncovered sidewheels began to quiver, then slowly to revolve. A
hush fell on the spectators. Fulton’s own hand at the helm turned the
bow. The _Clermont_ moved out into the stream, the steam connections
hissing at the joints, the crude machinery thumping and groaning, the
wheels splashing, and the smokestack belching like a volcano.... One
honest countryman, after beholding the unaccountable object from the
shore, ran home and told his wife he had ‘seen the devil on his way to
Albany in a sawmill.’”[18] A passenger, recording the voyage, says a
miller boarded the _Clermont_ at Haverstraw and said he “did not know
about a mill going up stream and came to inquire about it.”
[18] New York _Evening Sun_, July 1909.
The boat itself was wedge-shaped at bow and stern, which were cut
sharp to an angle of 60 degrees. She was almost wall-sided. She was
flat-bottomed and keelless, leeway being prevented by two steering
boards. Her tiller was at the back end of the after cabin so that it
was difficult for the steersman to see ahead. The paddle-wheels, 15
feet in diameter, being uncovered, splashed tremendously, and drenched
the passengers. A paddle-wheel had to be disconnected when it was
desired to turn the vessel round.
The _Clermont_ reached Chancellor Livingston’s residence at Clermont,
110 miles from New York, in 24 hours, against the wind, the average
speed being 4·6 miles an hour. The running time for the whole journey
to Albany of 150 miles was 32 hours, or nearly five miles an hour; the
return trip was made in 32 hours, running time, the sails not being
used on either occasion. An eye-witness as she passed up the river thus
describes her:
“It was in the early autumn of the year 1807 that a knot of villagers
was gathered on a high bluff, just opposite Poughkeepsie, on the west
bank of the Hudson, attracted by the appearance of a strange-looking
craft, which was slowly making its way up the river. Some imagined it
to be a sea monster, whilst others did not hesitate to express their
belief that it was a sign of the approaching judgment. What seemed
strange in the vessel was the substitution of a lofty and strange black
smoke-pipe rising from the deck, instead of the gracefully tapered
masts that commonly stood on the vessels navigating the stream, and, in
place of the spars and rigging, the curious play of the working beam
and piston, and the slow turning and splashing of the huge and naked
paddle-wheels, met their astonished gaze. The dense clouds of smoke,
as they rose wave upon wave, added still more to the wonder of the
rustics. This strange-looking craft was the _Clermont_ on her trial
trip to Albany; and, of the little knot of villagers above mentioned,
the writer, then a boy in his eighth year, with his parents, formed
a part, and I well remember the scene, one so well fitted to impress
a lasting picture upon the mind of a child accustomed to watch the
vessels that passed up and down the river. On her return trip, the
curiosity she excited was scarcely less intense--the whole country
talked of nothing but the sea monster, belching forth fire and smoke.
“The fishermen became terrified and rowed homeward, and they saw
nothing but destruction devastating their fishing grounds; whilst the
wreaths of black vapours, and rushing noise of the paddle-wheels,
foaming with the stirred-up waters, produced great excitement amongst
the boatmen, until it was more intelligent than before; for the
character of that curious boat, and the nature of the enterprise she
was pioneering had been ascertained.”
According to Colden, those who saw the _Clermont_ at night described
her as “a monster moving on the water, defying the winds and the tide,
and breathing flames and smoke.” She had, he proceeds to say, “the most
terrific appearance from other vessels which were navigating the river
when she was making her passage. The first steamboats, as others yet
do, used dry pine-wood for fuel, which sends forth a column of ignited
vapour, many feet above the flue, and whenever the fire is stirred a
galaxy of sparks fly off, which in the night have an airy, brilliant,
and beautiful appearance. This uncommon light first attracted the
attention of crews of other vessels. Notwithstanding the wind and tide
were adverse to its approach, they saw with astonishment that it was
rapidly coming towards them; and when it came so near that the noise of
the machinery and the paddles were heard, the crews in some instances
shrunk beneath their decks from the terrific sight; and others left
their vessels to go on shore; while others again prostrated themselves,
and besought Providence to protect them from the approach of the
horrible monster which was marching on the tides, and lighting its path
by the fires which it vomited.”
After the improvements had been made in the _Clermont_ she entered
in the spring of 1809 upon the regular work for which she was
intended--the day service between New York and Albany.
The guards and paddle-boxes, which were mere temporary structures, were
made substantial and permanent, and the cabins were rearranged and
refitted in the most beautiful manner. The _Clermont_, said Professor
Renwick, “thus converted into a floating palace, gay with ornamental
painting, gilding, and polished woods, commenced her course of passages
for the second year in the month of April.”[19]
[19] The “Master, Mate, and Pilot.”
When rebuilt she was christened the _North River_ and maintained the
service alone until October, when a second Fulton boat, the _Car of
Neptune_, was launched. She was a larger boat, and ran continuously
until 1817, and the other vessels which were added to the little fleet
also proved successful.
The complete list of Fulton’s steamboats would include also the
_Rariton_ (1809), _New Orleans_ (1811), _Paragon_, _Firefly_, a Jersey
ferryboat, and _Camden_ (1812), _Washington_ and a York ferryboat
(1813), _Richmond_, a Nassau ferryboat, _Fulton_, _Vesuvius_, and
_Demologos_, a warship (1814), _Aetna_, _Buffalo_, and _Mute_ (1815),
_Olive Branch_, _Empress of Russia_, and _Chancellor Livingston_ (1816).
Fulton and Livingston’s enterprise was a financial success almost
from the first, and naturally others thought to share in it; as they
could not join the pioneers they determined to rival them. One of
the chief of these was a Captain Elihu S. Bunker, who maintained a
line of sailing sloops between Hudson City and New York. The steamers
were taking the wind out of his sails in more senses than one, and not
liking the prospect of being becalmed, financially, he determined to
go in for steam. A syndicate of capitalists of Albany backed him. The
fact that Livingston and Fulton had been already granted an absolute
monopoly for navigating the waters of the State of New York by steam
deterred them not a whit. They ordered two boats, to be about the size
of the _Clermont_, and called them the _Hope_ and _Perseverance_. They
were each 149 feet in length, 25 feet beam inside the paddles, and had
a depth of 7 feet 7 inches.
[Illustration: ROBERT FULTON’S “CLERMONT,” 1807.]
Legal proceedings quickly followed, Livingston and Fulton having their
work cut out to defend their monopoly. How like these boats were to
the Fulton boats is evident from the affidavit of Charles Brownne, the
builder of the _Clermont_. He says that he has “examined the steamboats
_Hope_ and _Perseverance_ and they are not built like any vessels which
navigate by wind or oars on any of our waters, or any foreign waters
that he knows of. That said steamboats being more than Six the length
of their breadth[20] of beam and flat at bottom are not calculated to
navigate with sails only. And that the first boats of such make of the
said steamboats which he ever saw or heard of was built by him from
drawings and directions given to him by Robert Fulton and constructed
to be navigated by steam and wind, and which boats are now known by the
name of _North River_ and _Car of Neptune_ Steamboats: This deponent
also saith that the water wheels; the guards round the water wheels,
the covering to the water wheels; the steps from the wheel guards to
enter the row-boats, space on the guards for wood for the engine,
bins or lockers in the wheel guards and necessaries on the fore part
of the wheel guards, are exact copies from the Boats built by him
for Livingston and Fulton, and such water wheels, wheel guards and
conveniences he has never known or heard of to any other kind of boat
or vessel. This deponent further saith that in the said Steamboat
_Hope_ the manner of arranging the rudder with a perpendicular iron
bar on its after part, and leading from its wheel ropes, along the
sides of the boat to a steering wheel before the Chimney of the Boiler
and to a Station above the place of the engineer and fireman, is an
exact copy from the boats of Livingston and Fulton. This deponent
objected to this mode of steering at the time the said Fulton proposed
it, believing it to be impracticable, and he does not know of a like
mode of steering to any other kind of vessel. This deponent also says
that the mode of placing the main mast far forward, and the mizzen
mast so far aft, as to leave a convenient space between the two, which
shall not be incommoded by ropes, booms, or yards, and afford room for
spreading an awning for the comfort and convenience of passengers is
the same exactly in the said _Hope_ Steamboat as in the boats built by
him for Livingston and Fulton. That this mode of placing masts so far
apart, to the best of his knowledge, is not known in any other kind of
vessel, and would not answer for a vessel intended to work with wind
only, without the aid of steam, but in union with steam has been proved
by three years’ experience on the _North River_ Steamboat to succeed
perfectly well. This deponent further says that the form and make of
the said _Hope_ and _Perseverance_ steamboats, their wheels, wheel
guards, manner of steering, mode of placing the masts and rigging,
mode of arranging the awning, arrangements of the Cabins and kitchen,
suspending their row-boats from the sides instead of from the stern, as
is usual, are in his opinion in all these combinations and arrangement,
exact copies from the _Car of Neptune_ Steamboat, _and more like her
than she is like the_ North River _Steamboat_ which was first built,
and further this deponent saith not.”[21]
[20] _Sic_: probably means “their length was rather more than six
times their beam.”
[21] “Steamboats on the Hudson,” in the “Master, Mate, and Pilot,”
October 1909.
The _Hope_ and _Perseverance_ ran throughout the season of 1811 with
passengers and freight, between New York and Albany, and met with
as much of the public patronage as did the other boats. The courts,
however, decided that Captain Bunker and his supporters were acting
illegally, and gave the drastic order that their steamers should be
confiscated and handed over to Livingston and Fulton, who did not run
them but had them broken up.
Writing in 1838, in regard to his early experiments, to the Secretary
of the Treasury at Washington, Captain Bunker described an incident
which unfortunately for American steamship records does not stand
alone. The Captain was undoubtedly fortunate that matters were no worse.
“In 1811,” he says, “I had command of the steamboat _Hope_ plying
between New York and Albany. The engine and boilers were made and put
in by Robert McQueen. On the second trip from New York, while Mr.
McQueen’s foreman had still charge of the works on board (they not
having been delivered as completed), this man had a gang of his own men
from the shop, and, while proving the machinery, had a man that he was
instructing to become engineer of the boat. While on the passage, off
Esopus meadows, something appeared to be wrong in the fire-room (which
was in charge of a miserable drunken fireman) and the engine moving
very slowly. I found on examination, that there was not a drop of water
in either of the boilers, and that both of them were red-hot, as well
as the flues, and must have been so for at least half an hour. The heat
was great enough to melt down five solder-joints of steam-pipe, which
was made of copper. I immediately started the forcing pump myself, not
thinking that there could be any danger in the operation; the effect of
which was a crackling in the boiler as the water met the hot iron, the
sound of which was like that often heard in a blacksmith’s shop when
water is thrown upon a piece of hot iron. I cannot, therefore, believe
for a single moment that explosions are produced, to such a degree as
I have before recited, by throwing cold water into a red-hot boiler.
In the way above described, I cooled down both of the boilers, during
which time neither of them jumped out of its place; nor do I see how it
could be possible for such an effect to be produced, having always been
of opinion that there could be no other cause for a boiler to burst
than the pressure of steam inside, and not gas produced by letting
cold water or lukewarm water into it; for I deem it impossible for a
red-hot boiler to contain heat enough to explode with any quantity
of water that might be suddenly thrown into it. Besides, it must be
remembered that the supply-pipes are connected with the bottom of all
steam-boilers, or are very near to the bottom; therefore, instead of
producing explosion, the forcing of cold or lukewarm water into hot
water must have the tendency to cool it. For instance, I have known
engineers to keep off their feed as long as they possibly dared, when
running with another boat, knowing that as soon as they began to feed,
the steam would fall, especially if they could not get a full supply of
steam for the engine.”[22]
[22] The “Master, Mate, and Pilot,” Vol. II. No. 5.
So far as the Hudson was concerned the decision of the courts crushed
Captain Bunker, and frightened off any other possible trespassers on
the monopoly. But Bunker had determined to become a steamship owner,
and being crowded out of the Hudson he started a line of steamers as
near New York City as he could, the Long Island Sound Line. The
first of his vessels he named after his late opponent Fulton. She was
built in 1813 and plied for the whole of her first season in 1814 on
the Hudson River, as, the United States being then at war with England,
it was feared that she would be captured if she ventured up the Sound.
[Illustration: THE “PARAGON.” BUILT 1811.]
At the time the Fulton boats had to meet Bunker’s opposition, the
third Fulton steamboat, the _Paragon_, made its first appearance on
the river. She was both faster and larger than her predecessors. She
was fitted with two masts, one stepped very far forward, and the other
very far aft. The foremast carried an immense square foresail with a
little square topsail above it, and there was also a large triangular
sail carried on the stay from the end of the bowsprit to the cap of the
lower mast. The aftermast carried an ordinary trysail or mizzen. The
vessel had a large rudder and was steered from amidships, according to
a contemporary print.
The following year another Fulton steamer, the _Firefly_, came on the
scene. She was a small vessel, only 81 feet in length, and though
designed for the lower river service, was used elsewhere as occasion
demanded. Fulton by this time was himself planning the placing of
steamers on other rivers, and in 1814 the _Richmond_ was launched from
his designs for the James River in Virginia. The British-American War
at this time rendered it unsafe to send her south, and as the _North
River_, late _Clermont_, was about worn out by now, the _Richmond_
took her place. Fulton seems to have been associated to some extent
with Bunker, for the latter’s boat, _Fulton_, was designed by Fulton
himself. She was a sloop-rigged vessel with a single mast stepped well
forward, and made considerable use of sails. She was 134 feet in length
and 26 feet beam, and had a large square engine-house that extended
rather above the sides of her paddle-boxes. Hitherto all the American
steamers had been of the wall-sided, flat-bottomed type inaugurated by
the _Clermont_. The _Fulton_ was the first steamer to be constructed
with a round bottom like a sailing ship.
Fulton was also interested in steamboats on the Mississippi and other
western waters. He and Nicholas Roosevelt were associated in 1809 in
this project, and in 1811 the steamer _New Orleans_ was built. It was
the pioneer boat of the service, and descended the Ohio and Mississippi
Rivers from Pittsburg to New Orleans in fourteen days. In 1817 the
_Chancellor Livingston_ appeared on the Hudson and in her general
equipment marked a decided improvement in every respect upon anything
that had gone before. She was the finest vessel without exception that
Fulton and Livingston ever possessed. Her designer was Henry Eckford,
one of the leading naval architects in America. She was, moreover, the
biggest steamboat which had been built in the world, as she was of over
500 tons burden. The building of this boat was supervised at first by
Fulton himself, but he died before it was completed. The _Chancellor
Livingston_ was three-masted, and fore-and-aft rigged throughout, and
carried in addition a large square sail on the foremast. She had three
funnels which were placed forward of the paddle-boxes and between
the fore and main masts. Her engines were of the steeple type. She
was square-sterned, and not only carried a deck-house, but the roof
of the deck-house was extended to form a square deck or gallery, and
above this again were a smaller deck-house and a large awning, so
that passengers on either deck were amply protected from the weather.
The gallery, at the stern, was the same shape as the stern itself.
It was supported by stanchions, and carried as far forward as the
paddle-boxes. Early pictures of this vessel represent her as having
portholes along the sides of the hull abaft the paddles, from which
it would appear that in the body of the ship itself there was also
passenger accommodation. She was therefore the first vessel to have
three decks devoted to passengers.
The first trip of this boat was made towards the end of March 1817,
between New York and Newburgh, the 65 miles being covered in less than
nine hours, in only three of which was the tide running with the ship.
Coming back she did the distance in eight hours fifteen minutes, for
the most part against wind and tide. Her cost complete was 110,000
dollars.
This boat was not allowed to lie idle, and a statement was published in
December 1821 that the _Chancellor Livingston_ made during the season
of that year “170 trips from New York to Albany. Allowing the distance
to be 150 miles the aggregate will exceed 25,000 miles, which would
more than have carried her round the globe. We presume the _Richmond_
has performed the same number of trips, and when it is considered that
these boats are generally filled with passengers, some idea may be
formed of the extent of travel on the North River.”
Already excursions were very popular. The _Chancellor Livingston_ took
excursionists once a week during July and August as far as Sandy Hook.
The same year, 1821, the steamer _Franklin_ took passengers to the
fishing banks twice weekly, and the _Olive Branch_ of the Philadelphia
Line gave its patrons what its owners called “a sail around Staten
Island and turtle feast,” and it was added that “a fine green turtle
will be cooked, and a band of music provided,” all for one dollar
seventy-five cents. Captain Bunker, who had the _Enterprise_ built in
1818 at Hartford, Connecticut, brought her into the New York service in
1821, for an excursion starting at half-past four in the morning from
the East River for Sands Point. This is one of the earliest records of
a steamer built elsewhere coming to New York waters to enter upon the
local trade.
Henry Eckford also planned the steamer _Robert Fulton_, which in 1822
made the first successful steam voyage from New York to New Orleans,
and thence to Havana, in which trade she was afterwards engaged
regularly. The _Robert Fulton_ then passed into the possession of the
Brazilian naval authorities, who turned her into a sailing ship and she
became the fastest warsloop in the Brazilian navy.
The _Firefly_ was the first steamer to get round Point Judith, on the
Rhode Island shore, and reach Newport from New York. This was May 26,
1817, and the voyage lasted twenty-eight hours. The sailing packets
on the route, as usual, resented her incursion, and when the wind was
favourable they usually outsailed her. The competition grew so great
between the steamer and the sailers that the latter made the typical
American sporting proposal not to charge passengers for the voyage
between New York and Newport if they did not reach port before the
steamer.
Although the size of the American river steamers had been steadily
increasing, there had not been a great acceleration in the matter of
speed. Even at the time of Fulton’s death few, if any, American river
steamers exceeded an average of seven miles an hour for the trip.
Robert Livingston Stevens, son of John Stevens, built about that
time (1813) the _Philadelphia_, which attained an average speed of
eight miles. Speed was a question to which he devoted considerable
attention, for he realised its importance, and nearly every vessel he
turned out was an improvement upon its predecessor. The inventions and
improvements which he introduced inaugurated a new era of steamboat
construction. Of the fate which overtook some of these early vessels,
it may be noted that the _Clermont_ died of premature old age, the
_Car of Neptune_ was broken up, the _Paragon_ went to the bottom, and
the _Hope_, the _Perseverance_, the _Firefly_, and the _Richmond_ were
broken up.
[Illustration: THE “PHILADELPHIA.” BUILT 1826.]
According to evidence given before a Select Committee of the House of
Commons in 1817 by Mr. Seth Hunt of Louisiana, there were then ten
steam vessels running between New York and Albany, two between New
York and Connecticut ports, four or five between New York and New
Jersey ports, besides ferryboats on the Hudson and East Rivers. There
were also steamers on the Delaware, between Philadelphia and Trenton,
Newcastle, and Wilmington; also steamers from Baltimore to Norfolk,
Virginia, which crossed the estuary of the Chesapeake. Steamers had
been to New London and New Hartford. The _Powhatan_ steamer of New
York was three days exposed to a gale in the open sea, after which it
arrived at Norfolk, Virginia, and thence steamed up the James River to
Richmond. At that time, according to this witness, there were on the
Mississippi two steamers, the _Etna_ and _Vesuvius_, which were each
of 450 tons, carried 280 tons of merchandise, 100 passengers, and 700
bales of cotton.
Towards the middle of the last century numbers of steamboats were
placed on the coastal and river services from New York. The Fulton
ferryboats _Union_ and _William Cutting_ were both built in 1827; and
in the following year the _De Witt Clinton_ was built in Albany for the
passenger service between New York and Albany; she was 571 tons gross,
more than any of her contemporaries. A notable vessel, then the fastest
steamboat ever built, was the _Lexington_, which began to run in 1835
between Providence and New York. As the railway companies were formed
about the same time, the competition between the steamboat companies
and the railways was lively and fares were reduced with American
thoroughness. The _Narragansett_ arrived at Providence in October 1836.
She was fitted with a 300-horse-power horizontal engine, which was too
heavy for her, for on her trial trip she rolled over with the directors
of the company and their guests on board. Fortunately no lives were
lost. In 1838, the _John W. Richmond_ appeared as the rival of the
_Lexington_ and there were many exciting races between the two, but
two years later the _Richmond_ was sold for employment elsewhere. The
_Lexington_ was burnt in 1840, and the _Richmond_ met with a similar
fate three years later. The Fall River Line was established in 1847 and
has maintained the service to the present day.
All these steamers were built of wood, and as they increased in size
they developed a marked tendency to “sag,” that is, drop in the middle,
or to “hog,” that is, drop at the ends. This tendency was overcome by
an ingenious system of stump-masts and strutts, and iron ties, invented
by Colonel Stevens. There are various methods of applying these
stiffeners, and the peculiar framework of wooden arches and stump-masts
which appears on so many American river steamers is due to the
necessity of employing one or other of these systems for strengthening
purposes. In some of the later vessels (as in the _De Witt Clinton_)
these ties are put into the framework of the superstructure.
In construction, the development of American steamers on inland waters
since Fulton’s time has proceeded on entirely different lines from
those which marked the progress of river navigation in Great Britain.
American river steamers were designed not only to cope with the
traffic in narrower and shallower places, but to carry whatever was
necessary in deeper waters, and at the same time get through the more
difficult places somehow. The great distances to be travelled on the
American rivers rendered necessary the provision of vessels carrying
large quantities of cargo and extensive accommodation for passengers,
whilst the bars occurring at intervals in the beds of the rivers
made it compulsory that the vessels should be of light draught. The
construction of English river steamers, on the other hand, has been
conditioned by the comparative narrowness of the English rivers and the
lowness of the many bridges which span them.
[Illustration: THE “DE WITT CLINTON.” BUILT 1828.]
The Fall River Line boats were the pioneers of the modern type of
Hudson River steamers, the first of them being the famous _Bay
State_, plying between New York and Fall River. She was 315 feet long
and 40 feet beam and of 1500 tons burden. Her engines were of 1500
horse-power. The _Bay State_, being intended for Long Island Sound
work, was much more strongly built than those boats which were confined
to the Hudson River Line. This vessel was both the largest and fastest
craft of her day. She ran the distance from Fall River to New York in
nine hours fifteen minutes, including a stop at Newport. In 1864 she
was dismantled, and her hull was converted into a barge, her machinery
being placed in a new steamer named _Old Colony_. Vessels followed each
other in rapid succession, but although rival companies sprang up with
considerable frequency, few of them lasted very long and their boats,
if good enough, were sometimes acquired by the Fall River Company.
One of the most dangerous competitors was the Merchants’ Shipping
Company, which controlled fifteen steamers, and for which William H.
Webb, the famous American shipbuilder, constructed those two historic
boats, the _Bristol_ and the _Providence_. The line lost two or three
of its steamers in rapid succession, and had to suspend payment. The
_Bristol_ and _Providence_ had each two hundred and twenty-three
state-rooms. They were lighted by gas throughout, and were afterwards
steam-heated. Each boat carried a band of music, and for the first time
on an American merchant vessel the officers and crew were in uniform.
In 1883 the first iron steamboat in Long Island Sound, the _Pilgrim_,
was built. She had a double hull divided into ninety-six water-tight
compartments. The _Puritan_ followed her. The _Plymouth_ was launched
in 1890, and was burnt in dock ten years later, and in August of the
following year the present _Plymouth_ was launched. All these vessels
were side-wheelers, the later ones being of steel, and having a speed
of twenty miles an hour.
One of the finest vessels now afloat is the _Commonwealth_. She is
456 feet in length, 35 feet moulded breadth, 96 feet breadth over
the guards, and has a depth of hull of 22 feet. She has sleeping
accommodation for 2000 persons.
Like all steamers on the Fall River Line, the _Commonwealth_ is built
of steel. Seven doorless bulkheads extend to the main deck. The hull is
double, and the space between the bottoms is divided into a great many
water-tight compartments. She has also collision bulkheads on each side
at the guards and a bulkhead athwart ship. Her engine is of the double
inclined compound type, with two high-pressure cylinders 96 inches in
diameter, all having a common stroke of piston of 9 feet 6 inches. The
wheels are of the feathering type with curved steel buckets. Besides
the usual auxiliary steam pumps, there is a large pump for use only on
the fire-sprinkler system. Her speed is twenty-two miles an hour.
During the nineteenth century there was an equally striking development
among the steamers of the various lines on the Hudson River. The
_Empire of Troy_, to distinguish her from another steamer called the
_Empire_ built in the ’forties and belonging to a rival line, was then
the largest river steamer in the world, being 307 feet over all and of
936 tons register. She was quickly superseded by the _Hendrick Hudson_
of the Albany Line, which was the first Hudson River steamer to exceed
a thousand tons. This in turn was eclipsed by the _Oregon_. The _St.
John_, of 2645 tons, built in 1863, was the first to exceed 2000 tons,
The _Adirondack_, of 3644 tons, was placed on the river in 1896, and in
1904 the _C. W. Morse_, of 4307 tons, appeared.
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM CUTTING.” BUILT 1827.]
The Hudson River boats, after the first or experimental types of
vessel, have always been famous for their speed and beauty no less than
their comfort. One of the most famous of them all was the _Alida_.
Two others, which raced occasionally, were the _Oregon_ and the _C.
Vanderbilt_, one notable contest in which they engaged being in 1847,
for a stake of 1000 dollars. On the way back the _Oregon_ ran short
of fuel, whereupon the owners threw into the furnaces the furniture
and everything else that would burn which they could lay hands on. The
time of the run was 3 hours 15 minutes, which gave an average speed of
20 miles an hour. After the heroic sacrifice made by the Oregonians,
it is satisfactory to learn that the _Oregon_ won by 400 yards. The
_Alida_ and the _Hendrick Hudson_ raced from New York to Albany, the
former doing the voyage in 7 hours 55 minutes, the latter boat being 15
minutes longer on the voyage. The scheduled time of the present Hudson
River Day Line steamers over the same water is 9 hours 30 minutes, from
which it would appear that the boats of sixty years ago were as capable
of fast travelling as are their palatial successors of the present day.
One of these, a second _Hendrick Hudson_, was launched on the Hudson in
1907, a hundred years from the day of the _Clermont’s_ first voyage up
the river.
[Illustration: THE “MARY POWELL.”]
The decade from 1840 to 1850 was the golden age for steamboat
proprietors on the Hudson River, as there was then no railroad
competition, though there were several competitive steam-ship
companies. In 1849 there were no less than twenty steamers on the
route between New York and Albany, and the fares were cut as low as
12¹⁄₂ cents for the 145 miles. One of the steamers on the river in the
’forties was the _Norwich_. A few years later she was converted into a
tug-boat, and up to the end of 1909 was still in active service. She
has been repaired so often, however, that not much of her original
hull is left, but her first engine is still in use. A steamer which
is still held in affectionate memory by all frequenters of the Hudson
River, the celebrated _Mary Powell_, was launched in 1861, and was
never eclipsed in speed by any vessel until the modern torpedo-boats
were built. She frequently covered 27 miles an hour. This remarkable
boat came from the New Jersey yards of Messrs M. A. Allison. Originally
she was 260 feet in length, but in 1874 she was increased to 286
feet, and again in 1897 to 300 feet. Her paddle-wheels were 31 feet
in diameter, with 26 floats to the wheel, each float being 10¹⁄₂ feet
long by 1 foot 9 inches wide and dipping 3¹⁄₂ feet. One vessel, the
_Glen Cove_, attained notoriety if not fame by being the first to carry
that novel musical instrument known as the calliope. Fortunately for
New Yorkers, the innovation was not popular. The machine consisted of
a large steam chest, on the top of which were arranged a number of
valves according to the number of whistles to be blown. As a powerful
calliope could be heard for a distance of some miles, and as the
instrument frequently consisted of from eight to twelve whistles, and
the selection performed upon it was of the “Shall we gather at the
river” variety, it cannot be said that the English have been the only
people to take their pleasures sadly. Three boats plying in New York
Bay carried these excruciating instruments. The _Glen Cove_ was sold
with her calliope to ply on the James River in Virginia, and was sunk
by the Confederates during the Civil War. The most aggressive calliope
was carried on the _Armenia_. It had thirty-four powerful whistles.
[Illustration: THE “HENDRICK HUDSON” (HUDSON RIVER DAY LINE), 1906.]
In 1860, the _Daniel Drew_, a long and very narrow boat, reduced the
time of the voyage to Albany to seven hours twenty minutes. It is
impossible for the heavy steamers of the present day to travel on the
up-river stages as fast as the lightly built boats of that time, but in
the deeper waters of the lower river they are faster than the lighter
vessels. A steamer of the latest type is the _Robert Fulton_, built
for the Day Line by the New York Shipbuilding Company of Camden, N.J.,
and the W. and A. Fletcher Company of Hoboken. Her trials took place
exactly 116 days after her keel was laid, and she began to run in 1909.
The development of the steam-ships on the lakes was no less remarkable
than on the sea-coasts. At the outset the boats were of wood, which
was gradually superseded first by iron and then by steel, and with the
introduction of the latter has come also their greatest development
in carrying capacity. The first steamer placed in service on the
Great Lakes, above Niagara Falls, was launched in 1818, and bore the
picturesque Indian name _Walk in the Water_, after a noted Wyandotte
chief. She was of 338 tons gross and built at a spot which is now a
part of the City of Buffalo. The machinery was furnished by Robert
McQueen of New York, one of her owners.
By 1844 there were three large steamers of over 1000 tons each on the
lakes, built wholly for the American passenger service from Buffalo.
The first screw-propelled boat on the lakes was the _Vandalia_, built
at Oswego in 1841. She was one of the earliest vessels to have her
machinery placed right aft. By 1849 there were enrolled at Buffalo,
which was the chief lake port, 29 side-wheelers, 18 of which were of
from 500 to 1500 tons, and 10 screw-propelled boats of under 500 tons,
but by 1862 the number of steamers had increased to 147 side-wheelers
and 203 screw-propelled boats. The construction of the Welland Canal
and the Sault Ste. Marie Canal with larger locks than hitherto had a
most stimulating effect on lake shipping. American ingenuity devised
freight-carrying steamers peculiarly adapted for work on the lakes.
The largest boat on the Great Lakes is the _William M. Mills_, a
“bulk-freighter.” She is virtually an immense box girder 607 feet in
length, 585 feet length of keel, 60 feet beam, and 32 feet in depth,
with triple-expansion engines. She is built on the hopper and girder
system, and has a cargo hold 447 feet long without obstruction other
than three screen bulkheads fitted for convenience in carrying grain;
her cargo capacity is 514,505 bushels of wheat. She and her two sister
ships can each carry 12,380 tons of ore. Her water-ballast tanks will
take 7000 tons, and her pumps are so powerful that the whole of this
quantity can be discharged overboard in three hours. The officers and
crew are accommodated in a deck-house situated on the forecastle. Above
this deck-house are the navigating bridge and steering-house. The
engines are placed at the extreme end of the vessel, so that the whole
space between the engine bulkhead and the forecastle is devoted to the
cargo. The scantlings of the hull throughout are the heaviest on fresh
water.
[Illustration: THE “ROBERT FULTON” (HUDSON RIVER DAY LINE), 1909.]
On the Mississippi River and its tributaries a type of large shallow
steamers, propelled by immense side or stern paddle-wheels, was
developed. These vessels were noted for their high superstructures and
towering funnels. Racing was frequent among them.
In April 1838 the Mississippi River steamer _Moselle_, crowded from
stem to stern with passengers for St. Louis, blew up. She had gone a
little way up the river from Cincinnati for the purpose of exhibiting
herself and of coming back past the city “a-flying.” As she stopped
to turn, the boilers exploded, blowing the ship to fragments. The
captain, who was in the pilot-house, was blown about eighty yards away;
a boy on board was found dead on the roof of a house on shore. It was
never known exactly how many perished, but the number is estimated
at anything from one hundred to two hundred. One of the boilers was
thrown ashore by the explosion, and in falling made a large hole in the
pavement.[23]
[23] Cincinnati _Evening Post_, April 25, 1838.
Another accident of that year befell the steamer _Oroonoko_ on the
Mississippi. Her boilers blew up and, the wreck taking fire, about one
hundred lives were lost, most of the victims being burnt to death. The
engineer, before he died, said the boilers were full of water, and that
his department was not in fault, but that the boilers were old and worn
out and not fit for such a boat.[24]
[24] Vicksburg _Register_.
About the same time two other steamers, the _Pioneer_ and _Ontario_,
were racing on the river near Cincinnati and collided. The _Ontario_
ran purposely into the _Pioneer_, which returned the compliment by
deliberately ramming the _Ontario_, killing one passenger, dangerously
wounding two others, and smashing the _Ontario’s_ guards. The _Pioneer_
won that race, but intentional collisions were too much even for
the sensation-loving public which patronised the racing Mississippi
steamers and used to bet heavily on the result, and dangerous racing of
this character was for a time tabooed.
One of the most famous races on record was that between the _Eclipse_
and the _Natchez_, two magnificent vessels which were very evenly
matched. It is recorded that the immense funnels of these two boats, as
they tore along almost on a level with only a few feet between them,
were red-hot, and that the blaze from their pine-fed furnaces made the
dwellers on either side of the bank think that the vessels were on fire.
The finest passenger steamer which has ever been placed on the Lakes
is, without exception, the _City of Cleveland_. The hull, built of
mild steel, is divided into ten compartments by water-tight cross
bulkheads extending from the keel to the main deck. The double bottom,
which reaches nearly the entire length of the ship, is also divided
into ten compartments, which can be used for water-ballast, and she
has a steadying tank holding 100 tons of water and situated amidships
to check the rolling in a heavy sea. The _City of Cleveland_ is 400
feet over all, 390 feet keel, 54 feet across the hull, and has a depth
of 22 feet. Like nearly all American paddle-steamers she is decked
to the full width of the guards. She has seven decks, the main deck,
which is of steel, being sheathed with wood to deaden the noise of the
handling of cargo. Her electric plant provides 1500 lights, as well
as a search-light of 50,000 candle-power. Her engine was constructed
by the American Shipbuilding Company and consists of an inclined
three-cylinder compound engine, the high pressure being arranged
between the two low-pressure cylinders. The high-pressure cylinder is
54 inches in diameter and the low-pressure cylinders are each 82 inches
and the stroke of piston is 8 feet. The paddle-wheels are 29 feet in
diameter and are fitted with feathering blades, each of which is 14
feet long and 4 feet wide. This steamer makes two trips a day between
Detroit and Cleveland, and is credited with having attained to a speed
of twenty-four miles an hour.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF CLEVELAND.”]
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM M. MILLS.”]
The Canadian-built lake steamers are similar to those from United
States yards, and a typical specimen of colonial construction is the
_Midland Prince_, launched in 1907 by the Collingwood Shipbuilding
Company of Collingwood, Ontario, which, like the _Collingwood_, is an
immense freighter.
One or two “whalebacks,” a type designed for the Lakes by Captain
McDougall, have been seen on the Atlantic occasionally, but they were
not a great success. A vessel of this type visited Liverpool some
years ago, the _Charles Wetmore_, and having her engines placed aft,
and being built with a perfectly flush whaleback, without hatchways,
and with a “scow and pig-snout” bow, was a decided curiosity. The
ingenuity of her design and the excellent workmanship displayed in
her construction impressed naval architects favourably, but there
was nothing to show that she was superior as a cargo vessel to the
single-deck steamers on this side of the Atlantic. The whaleback
steamer is less in favour than it was, even in America, but a good many
of them are still to be seen on the Lakes and the Pacific coast.
CHAPTER III
THE PROGRESS OF STEAM-SHIP BUILDING IN GREAT BRITAIN
The first steam-ship built in the United Kingdom (and so far as is
known unnamed) was constructed on the River Carron in 1789 by William
Symington, and the engines for it were made at the Carron Works at a
cost of £363 10_s._ 10_d._ The following affidavits relating to this
vessel are of interest, as they go far to prove that William Symington
was the inventor of the marine steam-engine, the patent of which was
taken out in 1786:
“I, William Symington, civil engineer, now residing at Falkirk, in
the County of Stirling, in that part of the United Kingdom called
Scotland, produce herewith, and refers[25] to a memorial containing
a narrative of his connection with the invention of steamboat
navigation, each page of which memorial is subscribed by the deponent
as his relative hereto, and he maketh oath and sayeth that the said
memorial contains a true narrative of facts, as connected with the
said invention; and he further sweareth that he did not receive any
aid or assistance of any kind to enable him to invent and apply a
steam-engine to the propelling of boats.
[Illustration: PATRICK MILLER’S TRIPLE BOAT THE “EDINBURGH.”]
“Sworn at Woodburn, in the County of Stirling, upon the first day of
December, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four,
before me, one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County
of Stirling.
“(Signed) WILLIAM SYMINGTON.
“(Signed) JOHN CALLANDER, J.P.”
[25] _Sic_ in original.
“Joseph Stainton Esq., of Biggarshiels, manager for Carron Company at
Carron, in the County of Stirling, in that part of the United Kingdom
called Scotland, maketh oath, and sayeth: That he knows William
Symington, engineer at Falkirk. That he has access to know that the
said William Symington made certain experiments in the year one
thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine, by applying a steam-engine
to propel a boat along the Forth and Clyde Canal. That the machinery
for said experiment was made at Carron, under the direction of the
said William Symington, and the expense thereof, amounting to three
hundred and sixty-three pounds, ten shillings and ten-pence, was
paid to Carron Company by the now deceased Patrick Miller, Esq., of
Dalswinton. That the deponent has seen the boat in which the said
experiments were made, and has frequently heard of the experiments
mentioned. That in the year one thousand eight hundred and one, or
about that time, the said William Symington was employed by the
now deceased Thomas Lord Dundas to erect a boat and construct a
steam-engine to propel it along the said canal. That the deponent
saw the said boat when completed, and had access to know that it was
employed in the way of experiments to drag vessels along the canal.
That it consists with the deponent’s knowledge, Robert Weir was
employed by the said William Symington about the said boat. That he
knew the said Robert Weir, who now resides at Kincardine, to be a
man of respectable character and of veracity. That the said William
Symington afterwards constructed a larger boat, and the deponent had
access to see both the boats, and to know that they were propelled by
steam.”
“Sworn at Carron, in the County of Stirling, upon the thirtieth day
of November, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, before me,
one of His Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the County of Stirling.
“(Signed) JOHN CALLANDER, J.P.
“(Signed) J. STAINTON.”[26]
[26] “A Century and a Half of Commercial Enterprise,” by the Carron
Company.
Scotland owes her pre-eminence in shipbuilding and marine engineering
to Patrick Miller, an Edinburgh banker who, having retired with a large
fortune to Dalswinton, among other things set himself to ascertain
whether some better means of propelling vessels than sails or oars
could not be obtained. He had exhibited at Leith a triple vessel
“having rotatory paddles in the two interspaces driven by a crank,”
which was turned by four men. This he matched against a fast-sailing
Customs wherry between Incholm and Leith Harbour over a distance of
six or seven miles, and was very well satisfied with the victory he
secured. But his sons’ tutor, James Taylor of Cumnock, having taken his
turn at the crank, was so convinced by the violence of the exertion
that some more reliable power was needed, that he urged on Mr. Miller
the propriety of employing a steam-engine. Mr. Miller had placed
a new double boat on his lake at Dalswinton, and Taylor, with his
permission, arranged with his friend William Symington to fit it with
a steam-engine. Symington, who was then engaged as a mining engineer,
at Wanlockhead, had constructed a model of a steam carriage in which he
had converted the reciprocating motion of the pistons into a rotatory
motion. Miller and Taylor were shown this model in December 1787. The
engine had only four-inch brass cylinders, made, curiously enough, by
George Watt of Edinburgh. The trial trip of Miller’s boat took place on
October 14, 1788, in the presence of several hundreds of people, and
was so successful that Miller resolved to repeat the experiment on a
larger scale. In the next year a twin vessel, 60 feet long and fitted
with an engine with 18-inch cylinders, attained a speed of seven miles
an hour on the Forth and Clyde Canal. For some reason Miller became
dissatisfied with Symington, and abandoned his project of making a sea
trip with a third vessel from Leith to London. The cost of fitting up
a second vessel, for one thing, was greater than he had anticipated,
and he was further discouraged by a miscalculation through which the
machinery was made too heavy for the hull. Symington’s original engine
of 1788 is now at South Kensington, and a photograph of it is here
reproduced.
[Illustration: MODEL OF MILLER’S DOUBLE BOAT.]
Symington was the only one of the three who persevered.[27] He brought
his design for a steam vessel under the notice of Lord Dundas, who
was largely interested in the Forth and Clyde Canal, and suggested to
him the advisability of towing barges by steam-power. The _Charlotte
Dundas_ was accordingly built in 1801 under the patronage of Lord
Dundas, and made her appearance on the canal in 1802. The propelling
machinery of the vessel was a long way in advance of the time, inasmuch
as it consisted of a stern wheel driven by the first horizontal
direct-acting engine that was ever constructed.[28] She was 56 feet
in length by 18 feet beam and 8 feet depth, and towed two barges of
70 tons a distance of nineteen and a half miles in six hours against
strong winds. But complaints were made that the swell she created
damaged the canal banks, and her proprietors were forced to abandon
the enterprise. Thus the _Charlotte Dundas_, though an unquestioned
engineering success, was a commercial failure, and on being withdrawn
from service was laid up in Lock No. 16 and allowed to rot, a monument
to the genius of her constructor and the prejudice of those who were
too ignorant to recognise the obvious. A photograph of the model at
South Kensington Science Museum, and a section showing her machinery,
are given here.
[27] _Chambers’ Journal_, 1857.
[28] Sir G. Holmes’ “Ancient and Modern Ships.”
[Illustration: THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS” (LONGITUDINAL SECTION).]
[Illustration: SYMINGTON’S ORIGINAL ENGINE OF 1788.]
Symington also brought his steamboat to the notice of the Duke of
Bridgewater, who became his patron and contemplated trying steam-towage
upon the Bridgewater Canal; but on the Duke’s death his executors
repudiated the verbal contract and dashed Symington’s hope to the
ground. He was reduced to abject poverty, and died in the East End some
years later.[29]
[29] _Notes and Queries._
The next experiment of importance in steam navigation was made by Henry
Bell of Helensburgh. He was a house carpenter at Glasgow for many
years, and then, having opened a boarding-house at Helensburgh, he
conceived the idea of inducing more visitors to go thither by providing
for their convenience boats moved by paddles worked by manual labour.
This failing, he determined upon a steamboat.
He was probably influenced in his decision by the correspondence he
had with Fulton. The exact nature of the relations between Fulton and
Bell has never been satisfactorily determined. The _Caledonian Mercury_
in 1816 published a letter from Bell stating that Fulton wrote to him
about Miller’s boats, and asked for a drawing and description of the
machinery. Bell saw Miller and sent Fulton the required information.
The date of this transaction is not given, though Fulton is said to
have written afterwards to Bell that he had constructed a steamer from
the drawings Bell sent.
Bell’s story was that these letters were left in Miller’s hands. Bell
further states that the consideration of the absurdity of writing his
opinion to other countries, and not putting it into practice himself,
roused him to design a steamboat for which he made various models. The
result was the _Comet_, built for him by John Wood and Co. She was 40
feet on the keel, 10¹⁄₂ feet beam, and about 25 tons burden. The vessel
was inferior to Symington’s. The furnace was enclosed with brickwork
and the fire was not wholly surrounded by water. The boiler was placed
at one side of the vessel, and the funnel, bent so as to rise from the
centre, also had to do duty as a mast.
Bell had previously witnessed the experiments made in 1789 at Carron
with Miller’s second boat, and when Symington’s experiments came to an
end in 1803 he continued to investigate on his own account.
He advertised that his vessel was for passengers only, and that he had
“at much expense, fitted up a handsome vessel to ply upon the River
Clyde, between Glasgow and Greenock, to sail by the power of wind, air,
and steam.” The vessel was to go down to Helensburgh one day and return
the next, thus making three trips each way in the week. Many of the
sailing-boat owners regarded the _Comet_ with undisguised hatred, and
its invention as a device of the evil one. Thus, one Dougal Jamson, a
Clyde skipper, whenever the steamboat passed his slow-going sloop,[30]
invariably piped all hands--a man and a boy--and bade them “Kneel down
and thank God that ye sail wi’ the A’michty’s ain win’, an’ no’ wi’ the
deevil’s sunfire an’ brimstane, like that spluttery thing there.”
[30] _The Steamship_, January 1883.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE “CHARLOTTE DUNDAS.”]
The _Comet’s_ engine, which was built by John Robertson, was of four
nominal horse-power with a single upright cylinder of 12¹⁄₂ inches
diameter and 16 inches stroke, and drove a pair of half side-levers by
means of two rods. A connecting-rod from the levers worked the crank
shaft, which carried a heavy fly-wheel. The slide valve was driven
by an eccentric on the main shaft through a rocking shaft, while the
condenser was placed between the side-levers, which drove the vertical
air-pump. Originally the engine was fitted with a smaller cylinder,
but after being used for some months this was replaced by the one
described. Steam was supplied by an internal flue boiler, built by
David Napier. The vessel was originally propelled by two paddle-wheels
on each side, driven by spur gear, with the paddles on detached arms,
but this arrangement giving trouble, complete wheels were substituted,
and subsequently, after the vessel had been lengthened about 20 feet,
the number of wheels was reduced to two.[31]
[31] “The Clyde Passenger Steamers,” by Captain Williamson, and
Catalogue of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
They had considerable difficulty with the boiler. Its builder, David
Napier, writes that they first tried to make the internal flues of
cast iron, but finding that would not do they tried malleable iron,
“and ultimately succeeded by various devices in getting the boiler
fitted.” The _Comet’s_ first master was William Mackenzie, originally
a schoolmaster at Helensburgh, and the engineer was Robert Robertson.
The crew numbered eight, not forgetting a piper. According to an
advertisement, “the elegance, safety, comfort, and speed of this vessel
require only to be seen to meet the approbation of the public.”[32]
But her speed was unsatisfactory and Bell arranged with Robertson to
make alterations in the engine and paddle-wheels. She then made six
miles an hour, but even this was not sufficient to attract passengers.
The boat was not a financial success, and it is believed that neither
the builders’ nor Robertson’s accounts were ever settled. The career
of the _Comet_, indeed, was not a long one. On December 13, 1820,
she was wrecked outside Crinan. She parted amidships, and while the
stern drifted away the remainder of the vessel, with Bell, his crew,
passengers, and machinery, stuck fast. All scrambled ashore, and the
machinery was afterwards recovered. Her original engine was put to some
strange uses. A Glasgow coachbuilder took it as payment for a vehicle
he had previously supplied to Bell, and used it to drive the machinery
in his coach-works. It then went to Greenock and was installed in
a brewery. Another purchaser brought it back to Glasgow, and it
ultimately came into the possession of Messrs. R. Napier and Sons of
Glasgow, and Messrs. R. and J. Napier in 1862 presented it to the South
Kensington Museum.
[32] The _Glasgow Chronicle_, August 14, 1812.
But the _Comet_ was not the only boat with which Robertson was
concerned. Wood built the _Clyde_ for him in 1813, and she began her
work in June of that year. She was 72 feet long with a beam of 14
feet and depth of 7 feet 6 inches, and regularly went from Glasgow
to Gourock and back in about 3¹⁄₂ hours each way, including a few
stoppages, on a coal consumption of 24 cwt. The _Tay_ was built for
him at Dundee in 1814, but he had the engine built at Glasgow. She
plied for some time between Perth and Dundee, and in 1818 was back at
Glasgow, being then known as the _Oscar_. In 1814 Robertson had two
other boats built at Dundee, for which he provided the engines. These
were the _Caledonia_ and the _Humber_, and are thought to have been the
first steamers sent from Scotland to England.
Rivals quickly appeared on the scene, for the _Comet_ had shown that
what had hitherto been looked upon as an impossible undertaking could
now be regarded as a commercial speculation. In 1813 the _Elizabeth_
was built and was followed shortly afterwards by the _Clyde_. The
_Elizabeth_ was sent to Liverpool and was the first British steamer
to make a sea voyage. The vessel was in charge of Colin Watson, his
cousin, neither of them nineteen years of age, and a boy.[33] The
engine of the _Elizabeth_ was only 8 horse-power. The three adventurers
brought the vessel in safety from Glasgow to Liverpool through a
violent gale--a very remarkable performance. This voyage was made in
1815.
[33] Letter from Mr. K. Y. Watson in the second edition of Mr. John
Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
[Illustration: THE ORIGINAL ENGINES OF THE “COMET.”]
Watson left Glasgow for Grangemouth on May 8, and on the following day
started from Grangemouth with the _Elizabeth_, bringing her along the
canal. Obstacles of one sort or another caused detention in the canal,
specially at Lock No. 27, and Bowling was not reached until May 12. The
voyagers arrived at Port Glasgow on the 13th, where another stay was
made while the damages sustained in navigating the canal were repaired,
and preparations were made for the sea voyage.
The Clyde was left on June 2, but the little vessel had to be brought
up in Lamlash, Isle of Arran, there being a “dreadful storm at night,”
as the captain narrates. They sailed from Lamlash about one o’clock in
the afternoon of the 4th, “and after undergoing great peril, reached
Port Patrick the same night twelve o’clock.” A lengthy stay was made
there, due partly to an accident, the nature of which is not stated,
“but principally the want of money,” till Saturday 24th, when they left
Port Patrick. The _Elizabeth’s_ adventures were by no means over, for
she was obliged to bring up in Ramsey Bay, Isle of Man, an accident
throwing off one of her paddles. The financial difficulty having been
further overcome to the extent of six guineas, the _Elizabeth_ left the
Isle of Man with a fine breeze, “day lovely, but, after working all
day and night, we found on the morning of Wednesday 28th, we had been
deceived by our compass and were off the coast of Wales.
“We again unshipped our paddles, and drifted nearly to Dublin ere we
could again get them to work, but luckily did effect that and anchored
off George’s Dock Pier, Liverpool.”[34]
[34] The full log appears in Mr. Colin Watson’s “Doubly in Crown
Service”; the original log is stated to be preserved in Brown’s
Museum.
Another famous vessel of this period was built in 1814 at Fairlie by
William Fyfe. This was the _Industry_, known in later years as the
_Coffee Mill_ because of the grinding noise made by the cog-wheels in
her machinery.[35] She is also remarkable as being the only trading
steamer ever built at the Fairlie yard, for William Fyfe steadfastly
refused to construct anything but yachts and smart fishing smacks.[36]
[35] Mr. John Hastie’s Address to the Institute of Engineers and
Shipbuilders in Scotland, December 2, 1880.
[36] “The Clyde Passenger Steamers.”
The year 1814 saw the building of the _Princess Charlotte_ and _Prince
of Orange_, the first British steamers with engines by Boulton and
Watt. In the same year at Dumbarton, Archibald MacLachlan built the
_Marjory_, the first steam vessel to enter the Thames. She was sent
through the Forth and Clyde Canal and down the east coast, and as her
beam was wider than the canal locks her wings had to be removed.
Steamship building now proceeded with great energy. In 1815 boats
were built in Ireland at Cork, and the first voyage of a steamer from
Glasgow to London was made by the _Thames_, while in England the London
river steamboat service was opened.
The _Thames_, previously the _Argyle_, is described by the _Times_,
July 8, 1815, as a steam yacht, and as a “rapid, capacious, and
splendid vessel,” which “lately accomplished a voyage of 1500 miles,
has twice crossed St. George’s Channel, and came round the Land’s
End with a rapidity unknown before in naval history.... She has the
peculiar advantage of proceeding either by sails or steam, separated or
united, by which means the public have the pleasing certainty of never
being detained on the water after dark, much less one or two nights,
which has frequently occurred with the old packets.”
[Illustration: THE “COMET,” 1812.]
The _Thames_ always did her journey, a trip to Margate, in one day.
“Her cabins,” says the _Times_ eulogist, “are spacious and are fitted
up with all that elegance could suggest or all that personal comfort
requires, presenting a choice library, backgammon boards, draught
tables, and other means of amusement. For the express purpose of
combining delicacy with comfort a female servant tends upon the
ladies.” The _Thames_ was of 70 tons register, 79 feet on the keel,
16 feet beam, and carried engines of 14 horse-power. Her funnel did
duty as a mast, and carried a large square sail. “A gallery upon which
the cabin windows opened projected so as to form a continuous deck,
interrupted only by the paddle-boxes, an arrangement which had the
further effect of making the vessel appear larger than she really
was.”[37] She also displayed on her sides eighteen large painted ports,
besides two on her stern, which gave her such a formidable appearance
that several naval officers stated in evidence before a Parliamentary
Committee that they would have attempted to reconnoitre her before
bringing her to. For in those days merchant vessels carried cannons and
did not hesitate to show their noses through the ports if need were.
[37] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
Her voyage to London was made under the command of a former naval
officer named Dodd. She sailed from Glasgow about the middle of May,
carrying, besides Dodd, a mate, engineer, stoker, four seamen, and a
boy. The first night out they met a heavy gale, and instead of being
off the Irish coast as Dodd intended, they found themselves in the
morning perilously near Port Patrick, its rock-bound coast being
less than half a league on their lee. Dodd saw that his only hope of
safety was to run the engine for all it was worth, and the little
steamer managed to fight her way against the wind and a tempestuous
sea, gaining at the rate of about three miles an hour. Two passengers,
a Mr. and Mrs. Weld, joined the ship at Dublin.[38] Weld’s journal
records that he went to see the vessel “and found her on the point of
starting with a number of curious visitors upon an experimental trip
in the Bay.” He was so pleased that he asked Captain Dodd, who at
once consented, to take him as a passenger to London, and Mrs. Weld
“resolved on sharing the dangers of the voyage.”
[38] _Chambers’ Journal_, April 25, 1857.
When the adventurous journey was resumed several persons went with
them as far as Dunleary, now Kingstown, where they landed after being
violently sea-sick owing to the rough water. Some naval officers on
board prophesied that the vessel could not live long in heavy seas.
Kingstown was left, and the steamer soon found herself in as rough
a sea as ever. The next morning they arrived off Wexford. The smoke
led the people to suppose the vessel was on fire, and all the pilots
in the place put off to her help, but their dreams of salvage were
disappointed. The weather becoming worse, Dodd sought safety in Wexford
Bay. They sailed again for St. David’s Head. Both paddle-wheels met
with an accident and had to have a blade cut away, the vessel’s
progress, however, suffering but slightly in consequence. Milford Haven
was safely reached, but when nearing the port they met the Government
mail packet from Milford to Waterford under full sail. They had passed
the packet about a quarter of a mile when Dodd thought he would send
some letters by her to Ireland; accordingly the _Thames_ was put about,
overhauled the packet, and sailed round her. The letters having been
put aboard, Dodd took his boat again round the packet, although the
latter was under way, and then continued his journey. At Milford the
engine and boiler were cleaned. But after leaving Milford the pilot
declined to attempt to round the Land’s End that night. Dodd put into
St. Ives, where the _Thames_ was again mistaken for a ship on fire.
There being no shelter at St. Ives he went on to Hayle. Off Cornwall
Head a tremendous swell from the Atlantic met the steamer, and the
waves were of such a height as to render her position most alarming.
Dodd battled on, and after a night’s struggle rounded the Land’s End.
At Plymouth and Portsmouth officials and thousands of sightseers went
to see her, and at Portsmouth the Port Admiral was asked to grant the
voyagers a guard that order might be preserved.
[Illustration: THE “INDUSTRY,” 1814.]
The _Thames_ steamed up the harbour with wind and tide at nearly
fourteen miles an hour. A court-martial which was being held at
the time on one of the warships hurriedly adjourned to witness the
wonderful sight. Margate and London were reached in due course, the
ninety miles’ run from Margate to Limehouse being done in ten hours.
Sir Richard Phillips, in his “Million of Facts,” published in 1839,
writes: “In her first voyage to Margate none would trust themselves,
and the editor and three of his family with five or six more were the
first hardy adventurers. To allay alarm he published a letter in the
newspapers, and the end of that summer he saw the same packet depart
with three hundred and fifty passengers!” They must have been packed as
tightly as herrings in a barrel.
Another steamer on the Thames in 1815 was the _Defiance_. She was
possibly the first steamer to be built on the banks of the Thames, but
as there is no discoverable record of the fact, it is equally possible
she was built as a sailer, and was fitted with engines. The _Majestic_
appeared in 1816, and is thought to have been the first steamer
employed in towing ships. On August 28, 1816, she towed the _Hope_, an
Indiaman, from Deptford to Woolwich at a rate of three miles an hour
against the wind.[39]
[39] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
It is recorded that prior to the appearance on the Thames of the
_Marjory_, _Defiance_, and _Thames_, a man named Dawson in 1813 had a
steamer on the river plying between Gravesend and London. This Dawson
is stated to have made steamship experiments in Ireland, and according
to his own account he built a steamboat of 50 tons burden, worked by
a high-pressure steam-engine as early as 1811, which, by one of those
singular coincidences frequently met with in the history of inventions,
he named the _Comet_.[40]
[40] Stuart’s “History” and Knight’s “Cyclopædia.”
The first steam vessel known with certainty to have been built on the
Thames was the _Regent_, designed by Isambard Brunel, and built in
1816 by Maudslay, the founder of one of the most famous shipbuilding
firms London river has known. She was of 112 tons, with engines of
24 horse-power, and her machinery and paddles together were so light
that they only weighed five tons. She was placed on the London and
Margate passenger service, and in July 1817 was burnt off Whitstable.
Fortunately no lives were lost.
An apparently insignificant incident which occurred in 1818 resulted
in one of the most important discoveries in the history of the marine
engine. James Watt the younger happened to be on the steamer _Dumbarton
Castle_, built a year earlier, when the engineer told him that the
vessel had grounded the previous evening, and that the rising tide,
turning the paddles the wrong way, had caused the engines to reverse.
Watt explained to the engineer the importance of this, and at last took
off his coat and showed what could be done with the engines. Before
that date the reversing of machinery on steamers was either unknown
or not generally practised. Watt’s discovery enabled the steamer to
take its position at Rothesay Quay with precision and promptitude, the
custom previously having been to stop the engine some distance from the
point of mooring and allow the vessel to drift alongside.[41]
[41] “The Clyde Passenger Steamers,” by Captain J. Williamson.
[Illustration: PLAN AND LINES OF THE “COMET.”]
[Illustration: THE ENGINE OF THE “LEVEN.”]
After the experimental voyages described above it was not long before
owners of steam vessels and enterprising shippers generally recognised
the benefits to be derived from the establishment of regular coastal
steamship services. The year 1816 saw steam communication established
between Great Britain and Ireland with the _Hibernia_ of 112 tons
register, which enjoyed the distinction of being the first boat
employed in cross-channel service in the British Islands. She was built
for the Holyhead and Howth service, was lugger-rigged, nearly 80 feet
in length, and about 9 feet draught, and her passages averaged about
seven hours.
David Napier now introduced a great change in the shape of the fore
part of steamers’ hulls, which added to the superiority of their
speed over sailing ships. Hitherto steamers had been built with the
bluff bows which characterised the sailers. Napier observed that the
obstruction caused to a ship’s progress by bows of this shape was
very great, especially in dirty weather. He was crossing from Glasgow
to Belfast on one of the sailing packets which then did the journey
in anything up to a week, and perched himself on the bows, where he
remained, heedless of the waves and spray which continually dashed over
him. He was engaged in watching the bows and the waves, and thinking.
Occasionally he turned to the captain and asked if the sea was rough.
The captain said it could not yet be called very rough. The weather
grew worse, and at last a tremendous wave, breaking over the vessel,
swept her from stem to stern. Napier went back to the captain and
asked, “Do you call it rough now?” The captain replied that he could
not remember a worse night in his experience. To his astonishment
Napier was delighted with this answer, and went down to his cabin
remarking, “I think I can manage if that is all.”[42]
[42] An account of this voyage by Napier is given in the American
Admiral Preble’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
Subsequently he made a series of tank experiments with models, and
these resulted in the adoption of the fine wedge-shaped bows which
distinguished the steamships he afterwards built. This was the origin
of the first great departure from sailing-ship models in steamboat
construction.
In 1820 regular communication between Dover and Calais was established
by the _Rob Roy_, a Scotch-built boat. In the previous year the
_Talbot_ had been built by Wood for the Holyhead and Dublin service.
She was 92 feet long by 18 feet beam with a tonnage of 150. For this
boat D. Napier provided the engines, while the first steamer engined by
Robert Napier was the _Leven_, built in 1823. The _Leven’s_ engine, of
the side-lever type, is still preserved on Dumbarton pier.
In 1822 the St. George Steam Packet Company launched two large and
powerful steamers, the _St. Patrick_ and _St. George_, for the trade
between Liverpool and Dublin, and a few years later their _Sea-Horse_
sailed weekly between Hull and Rotterdam. The Original Steam Packet
Company also ran the _Waterloo_ and the _Belfast_ on this route. A
third company was now projected. Mr. C. W. Williams of Dublin came over
to Liverpool to seek financial support for his project of building
steamers for the same route. Failing at Liverpool, he returned to
Dublin and met with such encouragement that in the following February
he came back to Liverpool, and placed an order with Wilson, popularly
called “Frigate Wilson,” the leading shipbuilder of his time on the
Mersey, for the first steamer of what was destined to become one of
the most famous steamship companies in the world, the City of Dublin
Steam Packet Company. This vessel, the _City of Dublin_, was to be
constructed to carry general cargo besides livestock and passengers,
and to maintain the service throughout the year. She was probably the
first steamer designed to carry both passengers and cargo. Williams saw
that it was as much to the interest of merchants to have their goods
delivered with regularity as it was to the interest of passengers to
reach their destinations punctually.
[Illustration: THE “SEA-HORSE.” ABOUT 1826.]
Merchants were equally quick to see the advantages of punctual
delivery, and the Williams enterprise prospered. The following month
he contracted with Wilson for the building of the _Town of Liverpool_,
there being some delay in placing this contract as Wilson had just
contracted to build the steamer _Henry Bell_ for the Liverpool and
Glasgow trade. The _City of Dublin’s_ maiden voyage was made on March
20, 1824.
Meanwhile the Dublin and Liverpool Steam Navigation Company had been
founded, and started trading operations in September 1824 with the
steamer _Liffey_. In December of the same year the _Mersey_ was added,
and in 1825 the _Commerce_. The last named was the largest vessel so
far employed in cross-channel traffic. She was built at Liverpool by
Messrs. Grayson and Leadley.
The competition among the companies was exceedingly keen, and increased
as they added to their respective fleets. The City of Dublin Company
paid little heed to what was known as the Original Company, but found
its work cut out in competing with the other two. The first really
serious rate war broke out, and seems to have spread to the steamer
companies in the Scottish and North of Ireland passenger trade.
Not content with cutting rates to vanishing-point, the northern rivals
indulged in lively newspaper polemics in the shape of advertisements,
which praised their own boats and gave the lie direct to the manifestos
of their opponents. The owners of the _Swift_, sailing from Glasgow,
advertised the “great superiority” of their vessel “over the cock boat
that is puffed off as sailing direct from the Bromielaw.” “For the sake
of strangers coming from a distance it may be proper to state that her
power and size are double, and her speed so much greater, that when the
two vessels start together the _Swift_ runs the other out of sight in
five or six hours.”
The _George Canning_ was the vessel referred to in this contemptuous
manner and her owners retorted in kind. Their advertisement referred to
the “contemptible article in the _Swift’s_ advertisement” as “stating
a gross falsehood knowing it to be such.” The _Swift_ is challenged
to produce a single instance of ever having accomplished her passage
from Belfast in so short a time as the _George Canning_, and the public
are informed that the two have never yet sailed together either from
Belfast or Glasgow, and the _Swift_ is asked when and where she ran
the other out of sight.[43] So matters went on until the _Swift_ was
sold to the London, Leith, and Edinburgh Shipping Company in 1826. The
companies actually carried saloon passengers from Belfast to Glasgow
for 2_s._ a head; second cabin passengers went for 6_d._, and deck
passengers went free.
[43] _Glasgow Herald_, June 30, 1825.
The war on the Liverpool and Dublin route ended in the Liverpool
Companies carrying saloon passengers for 5_s._ and steerage passengers
for 6_d._ each, one of the vessels conveying on one voyage seven
hundred steerage passengers at that fare.
Negotiations between the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and the
Dublin and Liverpool Steam Navigation Company followed, by which the
former purchased the Navigation Company’s steamers. They had then a
fleet of fourteen vessels and entered upon a long career of prosperity,
chequered by occasional battles with rival companies. A rate war with
the Langtry Company of Belfast ended in the steerage fare between
Liverpool and Belfast being reduced to 3_d._, including bread and meat.
For a time, too, there was rivalry between the Dublin Company and the
Waterford Commercial Steam Navigation Company, which in 1837 joined in
the trade between that city and Liverpool with the iron paddle-steamer
_Duncannon_, of 200 tons, built by Laird of Birkenhead. This was
probably the first iron steamer built for the cross-channel service,
but by no means the first to be seen in Irish waters.
While the companies were struggling, passengers were even carried free
between Liverpool and Waterford, and sometimes between Liverpool and
Dublin. “A story is told of a passenger going into the Dublin Company’s
office at Waterford, and inquiring the cabin fare to Liverpool. He
was told he would be taken for nothing, to which he replied, ‘That
is not good enough, you must feed me as well.’” There is a tradition
also that when one of the rival companies of the Liverpool and Dublin
service “advertised its willingness to carry passengers for nothing,
and to give them a loaf of bread, the other company capped the offer by
the addition of a bottle of Guinness’ stout.”[44] The fight continued
for three years, until the City of Dublin and the Waterford Company
came to terms. This settlement brought about peace between the Belfast
and the British and Irish Companies, the former sharing the Liverpool
and Belfast trade with the Cork Company, while the British and Irish
Company shared the London and Dublin trade with the Waterford Company.
This truce continued for several years, but the war had sent nearly all
the Waterford trade to Liverpool, to the detriment of the line running
between Waterford and Bristol. A dispute followed between the Waterford
and Bristol Companies and was maintained until the Bristol Company
bought off the Waterford Company with an annual subvention of one
thousand pounds.
[44] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
The increase in the number of steamers from 1820 onwards was
extraordinary. In 1825, forty-four steamers were building at London and
Liverpool alone, with tonnages varying from 250 to 500. Most of these
vessels were built for the coastal service, the only international
voyages being between the British coast, France, and the Netherlands.
In 1818, according to Dodd, steamers were employed on the Clyde in the
conveyance of merchandise, though for the most part vessels propelled
by the new invention, as it was generally called, were confined to
passengers, the goods being sent by sailing boats. In 1820 and 1821 no
steamers were employed in the foreign trade, but in 1822 it appears
that the entrances inward of steamers engaged in the foreign trade
numbered 159, with a tonnage of 14,497, while the clearances numbered
111 with a total of 12,388 tons. The coasting trade in that year for
the United Kingdom was 215 vessels entered inward, with a tonnage of
31,596, and the clearances numbered 295 with an aggregate tonnage for
the year of 42,743. The year 1823 saw a falling off in the entrances
and clearances in the foreign trade, but in the following year there
was a partial recovery which was continued in 1825; and in 1826 the
number of entrances of steam vessels was 334, with an aggregate tonnage
of 32,631, the clearances being 268 with a tonnage of 27,206. In that
year also the coasting trade showed 2810 entrances of 452,995 tons, and
3833 clearances of 518,696 tons. By 1828 the coasting entrances rose to
5591, with an aggregate of 914,414 tons, with 6893 clearances and an
aggregate tonnage of 1,009,834. French-owned steamers first appeared in
the United Kingdom records in 1822, when there were ten entrances of
520 tons altogether. In 1823 the entrances from France had shrunk to
seven, of a total of 364 tons, and the clearances were the same; but by
1827, 74 entrances of French steamers are recorded, and 43 clearances.
In 1829 Holland appears for the first time in the list with one steamer
entered and cleared. But in 1830 the steamer traffic between the two
countries had grown so that the entries of Dutch steamers numbered
twenty-three, with an aggregate of 6463 tons, and the clearances
thirty-two with 8992 tons. By 1836 the entries in the United Kingdom
coastal trade were 13,003, with an aggregate tonnage of 2,238,137, and
the clearances 12,649 with an aggregate of 2,178,248 tons. In 1837
Belgium, France, and Spain figured in the returns, and in 1838 Portugal
and Brazil. Russia and Turkey were added to the list in 1839. In that
year the United Kingdom coastal entries numbered 15,556 of 2,926,521
tons, and the clearances 15,498 of 2,894,995 tons. These figures do not
include vessels in ballast nor those with passengers only.
The report of the Commissioners appointed by the Privy Council in
1839 to inquire into steamship accidents, shows that some laxness
prevailed in regard to registration, no fewer than 83 unregistered
steam vessels being discovered, most of which were in the passenger
trade; thirty-seven of these were on the Mersey, sixteen on the Thames,
twenty-six on the Humber, and four on the rivers on the east coast of
Scotland. The Commissioners added that there were probably many others
unregistered, as they did not visit all the ports.
On the other hand, there were only twenty-five registered steamers
on the Humber, Ouse, and Trent, and thirty-nine at Liverpool. Two
Liverpool companies owned more vessels than the total number registered
there. The Commissioners found that nineteen-twentieths of the large
number of trading steamers between Ireland and Liverpool, some of
which were registered in English and some in Irish ports, were owned
in Ireland. The report further stated that of the 766 steam vessels
tabulated as belonging to Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man,
Guernsey, and Jersey, 484 might be considered as river steamers and
small coasters, and 282 as large coasters and sea-going ships.
The total number of registered vessels at the end of 1838 was 677,
with a total registered tonnage of 74,510, a total computed tonnage
of 131,080, and estimated horse-power 54,361. Unregistered vessels
numbered 83 of 9638 tons gross, and 2129 estimated horse-power. The
foregoing particulars show how rapidly the number of steamers increased
for some years.
Services seem to have been started between almost every two or three
ports of the United Kingdom. The little wooden vessels were long-lived,
and had some unique experiences owing to the venturesome characters of
their captains, owners, or charterers. Provided the vessel would float
and get along it seemed to be the opinion of its owners that it could
go anywhere and carry anything. Thus a vessel built for river traffic
was thought suitable for deep-sea work also. It is not surprising to
find that many of the steamers changed hands frequently. They were
renamed at every change, and the resulting confusion makes it difficult
to trace their history.
It seems fairly certain, however, that accidents were frequent, and
it became necessary to devise means of carrying boats which would
accommodate at least a considerable number of the passengers if
necessary. Regulations as to the compulsory carriage of life-buoys,
life-belts, rafts, floating seats, and other contrivances for
supporting people in the water did not come into force until many years
after. The sole means of safety in the early days of steam navigation
were the boats and such wreckage as happened to float if the vessel
sank or went to pieces. But most of the steamers were so small, and
on their voyages so crowded, that they could not carry nearly as many
boats as were required.
The boats were generally carried on the tops of the paddle-boxes.
A suggestion which was carried into effect, especially in some of
the larger ocean-going steamers, was that the paddle-boxes should
be built square and be detachable from the guards, so that if a
disaster should befall the vessel they could be used as boats. This
contrivance had numerous disadvantages, not the least of them being
the unwieldiness of the paddle-boxes, and the difficulty of managing
them when afloat. Another suggestion was that each steamer should
carry two large boats of equal dimensions which could be used as the
tops of the paddle-boxes. The main advantage claimed for this idea
was that it would not add materially to the weight of the vessel.
Captain George Smith, in the ’thirties, contrived a peculiarly shaped
lifeboat which would fit over the paddle-wheels and take the place of
the paddle-boxes, and might when occasion required be turned right
side uppermost and launched outside the paddle-wheel. He tried this
experiment on the steamer _Carron_. “The upper section,” he wrote, “of
her paddle-wheel is covered by a lifeboat 25 feet long, 9 feet beam,
and having four air-tight cases which may be removed if required on
particular occasions. This lifeboat is capable of containing between
forty and fifty persons. When in her place over the paddle-wheel the
midship thwarts are unshipped, which admits of the wheel revolving
within 6 inches of her keelson; she lies bottom upwards on two iron
davits, which enable her to be turned over and lowered by six men in
two or three minutes.”
The early river steamers were often overcrowded, which is not to be
wondered at in those days of insufficient control, and a cartoon of
the period represents the passengers as hanging on to the rigging, the
bowsprit, the funnel, and anything else of which they could catch hold.
Complaints of reckless speed and careless navigation were frequent, and
the Worshipful Company of Watermen and Lightermen gave orders that the
speed should not exceed five miles an hour: but the captains of the
Thames steamers were often fined for breaking the rules, as they were
in the habit of racing against boats belonging to rival companies. As
to overcrowding, the _Times_ of April 16, 1838, thus delivered itself:
“It would be as well if some measures be adopted to prevent steamers
being overcrowded during the Easter holidays. During the last Easter
and Whitsuntide holidays the steamers were crammed with passengers in
a fearful manner, the small vessels carrying 500 and 600 passengers at
one trip, and the larger ones 1000 and 1500 persons, as closely packed
as negroes in the hold of a slave-ship.”
By 1846 the rivalry among the companies on the river brought about the
usual rate war. The steamers and the Watermen’s Company were often at
loggerheads, and neither always agreed with the City Corporation. An
attack of the City Corporation employees upon those of the Watermen’s
Company was valiantly resisted, and the watermen went to gaol in
consequence. _Punch_ commented on this as follows: “Considerable
excitement has been occasioned by some experiments which have lately
been tried in the Thames navy, on the same principle as that recently
applied to the _Bellerophon_, which was got ready for sea in sixty
hours, and got unready again with equal promptitude. The Waterman No.
6 took in coals and ginger-beer, manned her paddle-box, lit her fire,
threw on a scuttle of coal, filled her boiler, blackleaded her funnel,
tarred her taffrail, and pitched her stoker into her engine-room,
all within twenty minutes, and sailed away from her moorings at
Paul’s Wharf amidst the cheers of her checktaker. This manœuvre was
accomplished for the purpose of striking terror into the minds of the
civic forces at Blackfriars Pier, who are only tranquil at present in
compliance with the terms of a recent armistice.”
The modern development of the coastal steamer service has naturally
been confined to a strict meeting of its own requirements, and it is
not proposed to go at length into all the minutiæ of the differences
between the steamers of the various lines. Some of the most famous
companies have already been mentioned and their early struggles with
competitors described. In connection with coastal and cross-channel
traffic it will now be sufficient to sketch the careers of a few others
which have helped to make steam-ship history.
[Illustration: TRINITY YACHT MONARCH ROYAL GEORGE TRIDENT
THE “MONARCH” AND “TRIDENT” (GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO.) CONVOYING
THE ROYAL YACHT WITH THE QUEEN AND PRINCE CONSORT TO EDINBURGH, 1842.]
GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY
To London shipowners belongs the credit of establishing one of the
oldest steam-ship companies in the world, the General Steam Navigation
Company. It was founded as far back as 1820 and its first steamer, the
_City of Edinburgh_, was built expressly for trade between Edinburgh
and London by Messrs. Wigram and Green at Blackwall, and was launched
on March 31, 1821. Her engines were by Boulton and Watt, and were of 80
horse-power nominal.
A steam-ship of any kind was a novelty at that time, and the launch
of such a large vessel on the Thames attracted the attention of all
classes. The Duke and Duchess of Clarence, who were afterwards William
the Fourth and Queen Adelaide, accompanied by the Duchess of Kent
and a large suite, paid a special visit to the wharf to see her. The
royal party expressed themselves as much surprised by the magnificence
of the accommodation provided for the passengers as by the noble and
graceful proportion of the vessel in which such powerful machinery had
been placed. The _City of Edinburgh_ was followed in June 1821 by the
_James Watt_, launched by Messrs. Wood and Co. of Port Glasgow, and at
that time described as “the largest vessel ever seen in Great Britain
propelled by steam.” Her engines were of 100 nominal horse-power, and
drove paddle-wheels 18 feet in diameter with sixteen floats, which were
9 feet in length by 2 feet broad.
The company was incorporated in 1824 and then and for many years
afterwards occupied a place second to none in the British mercantile
marine as carrier of passengers, mails, goods, and cattle on the
leading routes from London to the North, and to the principal
commercial ports of Western Europe. The _Earl of Liverpool_, of 168
tons register and 80 horse-power, was built for the company at Wallis’s
yard on the Thames in 1822.
An early picture of this vessel shows her to have been two-masted,
carrying on the foremast three jibs, two topsails, and a trysail, and
on the mizzen two enormous flags, one several yards long bearing the
name of the vessel, and the other, half the size of her spanker, being
the company’s house flag, while at the stern she displayed an immense
ensign, and at the bows a little Union Jack. Her paddle-boxes were
rather forward of amidships, and a tall funnel with a spark-catcher
above stood a short distance in front of the mizzen-mast.
In 1833 this company built the _Monarch_, of which a contemporary
newspaper says, under the heading “Gigantic Steamboat”:
“The dimensions of the _Monarch_, Edinburgh steamer, launched a few
days since are as follows:--extreme length 206 feet 1¹⁄₂ inches, width
of deck 37 feet, width outside the paddles 54 feet 4 inches, length
of keel in the tread 166 feet; length of deck from the stem to the
taffrail 193 feet, depth in hold 18 feet. The extreme length given
above is within 2 feet of the largest ship in the British Navy; she
is larger than any of His Majesty’s frigates, and longer than our
84-gun ships. Her tonnage is somewhat more than 1200 tons, and the
accommodation below is so extensive that she will make up 140 beds, and
100 persons may conveniently dine in her Saloons.”
[Illustration: THE “TRIDENT,” IN WHICH THE QUEEN AND PRINCE CONSORT
RETURNED, SEPT. 1842.]
The _Trident_, built in 1842, was another of the company’s famous
ships, and was probably the first steam-ship in which a reigning
sovereign went for a lengthy sea voyage. Queen Victoria paid her
first visit to Scotland and made the return journey from Edinburgh
with Prince Albert and their suite on this vessel. An interesting
description of the voyage appeared in “Leaves from the Journal of our
Life in the Highlands.” The Queen remarked of the accommodation on
the _Trident_ “that it was much larger and better than on the _Royal
George_,” which was the royal yacht of the period, and that it was
“beautifully fitted up.” The _Trident_ soon lost sight of all the
accompanying vessels, except the company’s steamer _Monarch_, which
“was the only one that could keep up with us.” Writing a few days
later to the King of the Belgians the Queen says: “We had a speedy and
prosperous voyage home of forty-eight hours on board a fine, large,
and very fast steamer, the _Trident_, belonging to the General Steam
Navigation Company.”
These vessels, of course, were of wood, but when iron steamers were
introduced and paddles gave way to the screw propeller, the company was
not slow to see the advantages of the innovations, and to adopt them
for its services.
In modern times this company has distinguished itself by its zeal
for self-improvement. Every important development in steam-ship
construction and engineering has been marked by the company by an
addition to its fleet, one of the most recent being the _Kingfisher_,
the first steam turbine-driven passenger steamer on the Thames.
LONDON AND EDINBURGH SHIPPING COMPANY
Probably on none of the British coasts was the advent of the steamer
hailed with more pleasure than on the east coast. Travel between London
and the east of Scotland, before railways were possible, and when the
land journey had to be made by stage-coach or on horseback, or a sea
journey performed in sailing smacks, was a tedious operation. The
smacks were large of their sort, and as comfortable as vessels of that
period usually were (which is not saying much), but the North Sea was
as turbulent then as now, so that passengers who went down to that
part of the sea in smacks usually had an experience which lasted them a
lifetime.
The London and Leith service of the present day is maintained by a
line of steamers as good as any on the coast. The existing company
was not the first to trade between the two ports whence it takes its
name, but its history connects it with the earliest attempts to found
a regular service between the English and Scottish capitals. This was
established in 1802 by the old Edinburgh and Leith Shipping Company,
with six smacks. About seven years later there was established a London
and Edinburgh Shipping Company, which possessed ten smacks. There
had previously been a Leith and Berwick Company, so called because
Berwick was a port of call between the Forth ports and London. This was
the Union Company, which for fifty years previously had traded from
Berwick. It was absorbed by the London and Leith Shipping Company in
1812, and this combination was joined by another in 1815. The existing
company is the lineal descendant of the combination of the three.
Before steam was used “it was not an uncommon experience,” says an
historical publication issued by the London and Edinburgh Shipping
Company, “for a smack to lie windbound in the roads for days before
venturing out of the Forth, and instances were more than traditional
of a smack with a cabin full of passengers being tossed about on the
North Sea for days or weeks, and then forced to come back to Leith for
the replenishment of stores, without having been any nearer to London
than when she set out.” On one occasion a smack in which there were
seven cabin passengers was nine days at sea, the year being 1825, and
the month March. Upon leaving Leith for London and getting well into
the North Sea they were driven towards Norway for four days, when a
“welcome change of wind set in, which drove them back towards Scotland
with equal rapidity.” Having sighted the Bell Rock they continued the
voyage to London, and made a good run in spite of the loss of some
spars and canvas. The passengers were “unhappy” and at times were not
allowed on deck for fear of being washed overboard. Another smack was
three weeks endeavouring to get to London and then had to return for
more stores. Prior to the smacks the voyages were usually made by brigs
of anything between 160 to 200 tons, which sailed when their owners
thought they had enough cargo and passengers aboard.
[Illustration: THE “CARRON” (CARRON CO.).]
[Illustration: THE “KINGFISHER” (GENERAL STEAM NAVIGATION CO.).]
Presumably no one sailed by smack who could afford to coach between
Scotland and London, but the coach fare in 1824 was £13 and the
smack fare £4. Passengers by smack had a fair chance of witnessing a
sea-fight, during which the ladies would be locked up in the cabin
while the martially-inclined among the passengers might be called upon
to assist the crew in repelling the attack of a French privateer.
The smacks were superseded by the celebrated Aberdeen schooners or
themselves converted to that rig, and the schooners bravely upheld
the reputation of sail as long as possible against the all-conquering
power of steam. But in 1850 the company introduced steam and the fine
clippers were withdrawn. It is this company’s proud boast that it has
never lost a passenger.
THE CARRON COMPANY
The Carron Company, manufacturers of iron goods, maintained a passenger
service between Carron and London with sailing sloops long before
steam-ships were invented. So long ago as 1779 the company advertised
in the _Edinburgh Advertiser_ as follows:
At CARRON--For LONDON.
To ſail March 5, 1779
THE GLASGOW, Robert Paterſon maſter, mounting fourteen twelve
pounders, and men anſwerable. For freight or paſſage, apply to Mr. G.
Hamilton, Glaſgow, Meſſ. James Anderſon & Co. Leith, or the Carron
Shipping Company at Carron Wharf.
N. B. The Carron veſſels are fitted out in the moſt complete manner
for defence, at a very conſiderable expence, and are well provided
with ſmall arms. All mariners, recruiting parties, ſoldiers upon
furlow, and all other ſteerage paſſengers who have been accuſtomed
to the uſe of fire arms, and who will engage to aſſiſt in defending
themſelves, will be accommodated with their paſſage to or from
London, upon ſatiſfying the maſters for their proviſions, which in no
inſtance ſhall exceed 10s. 6d. ſterling.
The Carron veſſels ſail regularly as uſual, without waiting for the
convoy.
As the sloops carried the company’s famous carronades there can be no
doubt that they were well armed. The company can boast a more ancient
connection with steam-ship building than any other firm in the British
Isles, for they constructed the hull for one of the Miller boats and
assisted in the construction of one of Symington’s engines. Miller is
reported to have examined Symington’s engines at the Carron works.
The company soon ran steamers instead of sailing vessels along the
east-coast route and have continued to do so up to the present day, the
latest additions to their fleet being the _Thames_ by A. and J. Inglis,
and the _Carron_, 308 feet long, which has her steering gear fitted aft
at the rudder head and controlled by hydraulic action on the telemotor
principle.
An interesting fact in connection with the Carron Company is that the
first set of complete castings for James Watt’s steam-engine were made
at their works, and were erected at the house of Dr. Roebuck, who was
one of the founders of the company and a personal friend of Watt. A
part of the cylinder of this engine marked “Carron 1766” is still
preserved at the works. John Smeaton, of Eddystone Lighthouse fame, was
also associated with the Carron works.
[Illustration: THE “FINGAL” (LONDON AND EDINBURGH SHIPPING CO.).]
[Illustration: THE “LADY WOLSELEY”
(BRITISH AND IRISH STEAM PACKET CO.)]
DUNDEE, PERTH AND LONDON SHIPPING COMPANY
This company dates, like others on the east coast, from the time when
the voyage between the Thames and Scotland was only performed by
sailing smacks, and of these they ran nineteen. But in 1834 the smacks
were removed and paddle-steamers took their place. Their first steamers
were the _Dundee_ and the _Perth_, each boat having a commander as well
as a sailing master. They were wonderful vessels for the time, being
of 650 tons burden and 300 horse-power. They were advertised as “these
splendid and powerful steamers”; the cabins were “airy, commodious”
(epithet beloved of steam-ship companies), and “elegant.” The company’s
present-day fleet consists of the _London_ and the _Perth_, each of
1737 tons and 3000 horse-power.
ISLE OF MAN STEAM PACKET COMPANY
No steamer company holds a more honourable position in the coastal and
passenger trade than the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company. The vessels
in early years were known as “the little Cunarders,” a compliment
which they well deserved. The appearance of the vessels of the two
companies was much the same, and the red and black funnel has always
been a distinguishing feature of both lines. The first boat of the
Isle of Man Company was built by John Wood of Glasgow in 1830, and
named the _Mona’s Isle_, a title which has been borne by more than one
distinguished successor. She was schooner-bowed, and carried on her
paddle-boxes, which were placed well forward, the familiar three-legged
sign of Manxland. The engines of the first Cunarder built for the
transatlantic service were by Napier, who also built the hull, and
this steamer was to all intents and purposes a large edition of the
_Mona’s Isle_, whose engines he had previously built. Her dimensions
were 116 feet in length by 19 feet beam, with a depth of 10 feet,
and 200 gross tonnage. She cost £7042, and when sold in 1851 after
twenty-one years’ service, in which she proved a most profitable
vessel, she fetched £580.
But the first steamer seen in Manx waters was the _Henry Bell_, named
after the constructor of the historic _Comet_; she was on her way from
the Clyde to Liverpool to be placed on the service between Liverpool
and Runcorn and put in at Ramsey Bay. In May of the following year
the _Greenock_ arrived at Douglas, whence she took some passengers
to Laxey, and, as a local chronicler puts it, “moved by apparent
enchantment.” The _Mona’s Isle_ was thought to be too large and
valuable to risk being used in winter, and a smaller boat was therefore
ordered from the same builder. This was the _Mona_, and after her
arrival in July 1832, she was engaged in a service between the island
and Whitehaven and in taking visitors on trips round the island.
Even before the advent of the steamers, the Isle of Man had become a
favourite place at which to spend the summer, especially among the
people of the north and west counties. If affection for the island
could induce so many hundreds of people to brave the discomforts of a
voyage from the Mersey to Douglas and back again in the small sailing
packets which then were the means of communication, it is little wonder
that the advent of the steamers, restricted in dimensions as they were,
poor in accommodation, and slow travellers, should have increased her
popularity. Occasionally the sailing packet took as long as a week to
make the trip, and it was hailed as an extraordinary circumstance that
a vessel trading between Douglas and Whitehaven was able to make
fifty-two voyages each way in the course of a year. In 1813 also, a
sailer took three days and nights to get within sight of Liverpool, and
was then driven back by stormy weather to the island.
[Illustration: THE “BEN-MY-CHREE” (I.). BUILT 1845.]
The _Mona_ had one mast on which she could carry a jib, a
forestay-sail, a mainsail, and a topsail, and her funnel was abaft
the paddle-boxes, which were amidships. She was faster than her
predecessor, and usually did the journey between Liverpool and Douglas
in about seven and a half hours. She once reached Whitehaven from
Douglas in a trifle over four and a half hours, which was claimed to
be one of the fastest pieces of travelling on record. The _Queen of
the Isle_, which was the company’s third ship, was the fastest vessel
afloat at the time. These three boats, according to a bill issued
in 1834, were known as the Royal Mail and War Office steam-packets,
though they never had any connection, so far as the company has been
able to ascertain, with the War Office. A Liverpool firm purchased the
_Mona_ in 1851 and sold her to the City of Dublin Company, who ran her
for several years, until she was hopelessly outclassed in size and
accommodation by newer boats. She was then used as a tug, and so spent
the remainder of her days.
The first steamer ordered by the company to be built in the island was
the first _King Orry_, by John Winram, with engines by Robert Napier.
This boat was the last of the company’s wooden paddle-steamers. She
was a very reliable boat but not particularly fast, for she usually
took about seven hours for the trip each way. In 1843 the _Queen of the
Isle_ was relieved of her engines, sold, and turned into a full-rigged
sailing ship and met her fate off the Falkland Islands.
The _Ben-my-Chree_, a three-masted schooner, the first of the company’s
steamers to be built of iron, was fitted with the _Queen of the Isle’s_
engines. The _Tynwald_, a larger steamer still, followed in 1845, and
was herself followed by the _Mona’s Queen_, a rather smaller vessel
but faster, and bearing a figure-head which the carver said was a
likeness of Queen Victoria; be that as it may, the vessel was named in
commemoration of the visit of the Queen to the island in 1847.
Hitherto the company’s steamers had been of little more than local
interest; the _Douglas_ was now ordered and she acquired international
fame. This vessel was the first of the Manx boats in which the
straight stem was adopted. She was built in 1858; her length between
perpendiculars was 205 feet, with a beam of 26 feet and a depth of 14
feet, and a gross tonnage of 700. The _Tynwald_, which was of the same
tonnage was 188 feet long, by 27 feet beam, and 13 feet 6 inches depth.
The _Douglas_ was thus longer in proportion to her beam than any of
her predecessors, and being powerfully engined, made 17¹⁄₄ knots on
her trial trip. She did the passage between Liverpool and Douglas in
4 hours and 20 minutes, and was the fastest sea-going paddle-steamer
afloat.
The situation at this time between the Northern and Southern States
of the United States of America was becoming strained, and there
were already indications of the approaching conflict. After four
years’ service the _Douglas_ was sold, through a third party, to the
Confederate agents.
[Illustration: THE “TYNWALD” (I.). BUILT 1846.]
In a coat of grey paint, with her upper works altered, carrying two
or three guns, and rechristened the _Margaret and Jessie_, the trim
Manx boat became one of the most famous blockade-runners the Southern
States possessed. Her career was brief, but exciting. In 1863 she was
sighted off Abaco by the Federal steamer _Rhode Island_, which chased
her to Eleuthera in the Bahamas and fired upon her when she was only
250 yards off shore. Shot and shell were rained at her by the gunboat,
many of the missiles passing beyond the fugitive and striking the
shore. At length a shot penetrated her boiler, and another struck her
bows so that she had to be beached. This is her last recorded exploit.
Contradictory stories are told of her. One states that she was patched
up, refloated, and became a peaceful trader among the islands; another,
that she was wrecked where she lay; yet another that she resumed her
blockade-running under another name, though this may be explained by
the fact that blockade-runners often changed their names and disguises,
and that one of them may have had a name somewhat similar; and a fourth
story is that she was turned into a sailing schooner and ultimately
became a coal-barge.
The next boat built by the company was the no less famous _Ellan
Vannin_, first named the _Mona’s Isle_. She was an iron vessel built
in 1860. Her dimensions were: length 198 feet 6 inches, breadth 22
feet 2 inches, depth 10 feet 7 inches, with a gross tonnage of 380.
Her indicated horse-power was 600 and her nominal horse-power 100. She
averaged about 12 knots. She was lost with all on board at the mouth of
the Mersey in the terrible gale of November 1909. She was originally a
paddle-boat, but was converted into a twin-screw steamer in 1883, and
was then renamed the _Ellan Vannin_. Her regularity of passage and her
immunity from accident were as noteworthy under her new conditions as
under the old, and until she ended her career under circumstances which
make her loss one of the most remarkable mysteries of the shipping of
the port of Liverpool, she was looked upon as the mascot of the fleet.
Three years later the _Snaefell_ was ordered; she was 326 feet in
length, by 26 feet beam, with a gross tonnage of 700, and was propelled
by engines of 240 nominal horse-power. She brought down the passage
from Douglas to Liverpool to 4 hours 21 minutes.
The Royal Netherlands Steamship Company, being in want of a fast
steamer for the conveyance of the mails between Queenborough and
Flushing, bought the _Snaefell_ and afterwards chartered the second
_Snaefell_ built in 1876, of rather larger dimensions, and with a
gross tonnage of 849, and engines of 540 nominal horse-power and 1700
indicated, capable of driving her at an average speed of 15 knots.
In 1871 the second _King Orry_ was built. She was 290 feet in length
by 29 feet beam, with a depth of 14 feet 7 inches, and of 1104 gross
tonnage, and was much the largest steamer the company had possessed up
to this time. Her engines were of 622 nominal horse-power, and 4000
indicated, and her speed was 17 knots. Her original length was 260
feet, and another 30 feet were added in 1888. The second _Ben-my-Chree_
was built to the order of the company in 1875, and was 310 feet in
length, 1192 gross tonnage, and with a speed of 14 knots. She was the
only passenger vessel for some time in the British Isles to be fitted
with four funnels, two of which were carried before and two abaft
the paddle-boxes. From this peculiarity of her construction she was
known to her patrons and to the west of England shipping people as the
floating coach-and-four. What advantage was gained by the four funnels
is not known, for they held a lot of wind.
The second _Mona_, a much smaller vessel, followed in 1878 and was the
first of the company’s fleet to be fitted with a screw. Three years
later the _Fenella_, which in its general dimensions was almost a
sister ship to the second _Mona_, was built and was the first to be
fitted with twin screws. She was so successful that the conversion of
the _Mona’s Isle_ into a twin-screw boat followed. The company returned
to paddle-wheels for their next vessel, the third _Mona’s Isle_, which
was the first to be built of steel, of which material all the company’s
subsequent boats have been constructed. The _Mona’s Isle_ was 330 feet
7 inches between perpendiculars, 38 feet 1 inch beam, 15 feet 1 inch
depth of hold, and of 1564 gross tonnage. Her engines were of 1983
nominal horse-power, and 4500 indicated, and her speed was 17¹⁄₂ knots.
Two years later the little _Peveril_ was launched, also bearing a name
of historical association in the island. She was the company’s first
steel twin-screw boat, and was lost in September 1899, not far from
where the _Ellan Vannin_ went down. The second _Mona’s Queen_, only
slightly smaller than the second _Mona’s Isle_, followed in 1885, and
in 1888 the sister vessels _Prince of Wales_ and _Queen Victoria_ were
added to the fleet.
[Illustration: THE “MONA’S ISLE” (II.). BUILT 1860 AS A PADDLE STEAMER.]
They were each 330 feet between perpendiculars, 39 feet 1 inch beam, 15
feet 2 inches depth of hold, with a gross tonnage of 1557. The engines
of each were of 925 nominal horse-power, and of 6500 indicated, and
their average speed was 20¹⁄₂ knots. Both these were paddle-vessels.
The third _Tynwald_ was launched in 1891, and is a twin-screw ship.
The _Empress Queen_, the biggest paddle-steamer the company ever
possessed, was ordered in 1896 from the Fairfield Company. She is 360
feet 1 inch between perpendiculars, 42 feet 3 inches beam, and 17 feet
depth of hold. Her gross tonnage is 2140; her engines, of 1290 nominal
horse-power and 10,000 indicated, gave her then a speed of 21¹⁄₂ knots,
which has since sometimes been exceeded. The third _Douglas_ and the
third _Mona_ call for no special comment, except that the former was
the _Dora_ of the London and South-Western Railway, from which the Manx
Company purchased her in 1901, and that the last-named steamer was
the last paddle-boat ordered by the company. The directors in 1905,
finding the need of newer and faster vessels, ordered the steamer
_Viking_, propelled by triple screws driven by turbine machinery, and
so successful was she that the third _Ben-my-Chree_ was added in 1908.
It may be questioned if any other of the coasting companies presents in
its vessels such an illustration of the development of steam-ships and
steam-engines, from the insignificant little tubs no bigger than river
barges to the latest examples of the shipbuilder’s art.
The opposition which the Manx Company has had to fight has been severe.
Its first steamer, the _Mona’s Isle_, on her first voyage found herself
pitted against the _Sophia Jane_, the boat which afterwards made the
first steam voyage to Australia. It would be more correct to say
that in this case the _Mona’s Isle_ was the opposition boat, as the
_Sophia Jane_, which belonged to the St. George Company, was already
on the service. The older boat got in first by something less than two
minutes. But new steamers seldom attain their best speed at first,
and the newcomer soon developed such speed that the old boat was left
behind on every voyage afterwards in which they competed, and once
came in after a rough trip three and a half hours behind. The rivalry
resulted in the usual rate war, and the St. George Company brought its
fares down to 6_d._ single. But neither this step nor the placing of
the splendid steamer _St. George_ on the service did the Manx Company
any harm. The first race between their vessels was remarkable for an
ingenious piece of seamanship on the part of the commander of the
_Mona’s Isle_. The little paddle-boats of those days usually felt a
strong beam wind to such an extent that the paddle on the windward side
would be out of the water half of the time, and that on the lee side
half buried owing to the boat heeling over. The captain, judging that
the dirty weather which then prevailed would continue next day, spent
the night before the race in shifting the cargo and coal on board his
boat to the windward side. When the two vessels left the Mersey in the
morning the _St. George_ was in beautiful trim, and the Manx boat was
leaning over on one side in a fashion which caused those who did not
understand what had been done to laugh at her. When the open sea was
reached it was the _St. George’s_ turn to heel over before the gale,
and the _Mona’s Isle_ went along practically on an even keel, using
both her paddles to the best advantage, while the _St. George_ had
one nearly buried and the other beating the air uselessly much of the
time. Of course the _Mona’s Isle_ won. This incident is interesting as
it shows the daring nature of the expedients which the captains of the
little steamers of those times were prepared to adopt.
[Illustration: THE “ELLAN VANNIN” (THE FOREGOING ALTERED TO A SCREW
STEAMER AND RENAMED, 1883).]
This rivalry was destined to end in the wreck of the _St. George_. The
Manx captain, having probably a better knowledge of local conditions
than the commander of the _St. George_, foresaw that a south-easterly
gale was rising, which always blows inshore at Douglas. As soon,
therefore, as he landed his passengers he put to sea again, but the
_St. George_ was anchored in the bay, and during the night as the gale
freshened she was blown on the Connister Rocks and went to pieces. All
on board were saved by the Douglas lifeboat, whose captain was one of
the founders of the Royal Lifeboat Institution. The St. George Company
maintained the opposition for a little while longer, until another
vessel, the _William the Fourth_, was lost. They then retired from the
service altogether.
The St. George Company was itself an opposition line at first to that
established by Messrs. Little and Co.; but the last-named firm have
maintained their steamship connection with the island until within
the last few years. It is little wonder that the Manx Company was
started to supersede the St. George Company, for the latter, having no
opposition during the winter months, used for that station its slowest
and smallest boats, which were devoid alike of adequate comfort and
shelter for the passengers.
MESSRS. JAMES LITTLE AND CO.
This firm, which was established as early as 1812, despatched in 1819
the first steamer which ever carried passengers from the Clyde to
Liverpool. This was the _Robert Bruce_, a small vessel of 98 feet
in length; she was soon followed by the _Superb_, and in 1820 by
the _Majestic_, and two years later by the _City of Glasgow_. The
steamers on the Liverpool and Glasgow service called at Port Patrick
and Douglas, and in 1828 Messrs. Little inaugurated their Glasgow
and Belfast service with a new vessel, the _Frolic_. It was for this
service also that some years later they ordered, from Messrs. Denny
and Co. of Dumbarton, the _Waterwitch_, which was the first screw
steamer built on the Clyde. Another of their most notable boats was the
_Herald_, a Clyde paddle-steamer, built in 1866 and placed by them on
the Barrow and Isle of Man service the following year. They afterwards
added those fine steamers _Manx Queen_, _Duchess of Devonshire_, and
_Duchess of Buccleuch_, which were so successful that the rivalry
between them and the Isle of Man Steam Packet boats became very keen,
the Barrow route to the Isle of Man being shorter than the Liverpool.
The evident popularity of the Isle of Man services has proved a sore
temptation to speculators to start rival lines to those already in
existence. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company had a virtual monopoly
of the Liverpool and Manx service for close on half a century, but
in 1887 two large and fast paddle-steamers, _Queen Victoria_ and
_Prince of Wales_, each of 1657 tons, built by the Fairfield Company
for the Isle of Man, Liverpool, and Manchester Company, were started
in opposition. Both vessels are stated to have done the journey in a
trifle over three hours, and the _Prince of Wales_ once accomplished
it in under the three hours. After another season’s conflict the two
boats were bought by the Manx Company. Another opposition company
tried its fortunes for a season with the _Lancashire Witch_, a
twin-screw steamer, which now, under the name of the _Coogee_, belongs
to the great Australian shipowning firm, the Huddart Parker and Co.
Proprietary, Ltd. There have been several other attempts at opposition
with boats neither so fast nor so comfortable as those of the
established company.
[Illustration:
=THE MAJESTIC,=
Captain OMAN,
AND
=THE CITY OF GLASGOW,=
Captain CARLYLE,
Sail from GREENOCK every MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, and FRIDAY, at One
o’Clock in the Afternoon, and from LIVERPOOL, every MONDAY,
WEDNESDAY, and FRIDAY, at Ten o’Clock in the Forenoon, calling
off PORT PATRICK, and at DOUGLAS, ISLE OF MAN, both in going and
returning from LIVERPOOL.
These Packets carry no Goods, being expressly fitted up for the
comfort and accommodation of Passengers.
FARES.
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| For the First Cabin, including Provisions and Steward’s |
| Fees. |
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
| | _To Port|_To Isle| _To | _To |
| |Patrick._|of Man._|Liverpool._|Greenock._|
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
|From GREENOCK, | £1 1 0|£1 10 0| £2 5 0 | £0 0 0 |
| PORT PATRICK,| 0 0 0| 1 1 0| 1 11 0 | 1 1 0 |
| ISLE OF MAN, | 1 1 0| 0 0 0| 0 17 0 | 1 10 6 |
| LIVERPOOL, | 1 11 6| 0 17 0| 0 0 0 | 2 5 0 |
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
| For the Second Cabin without Provisions. |
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
| | _To Port|_To Isle| _To | _To |
| |Patrick._|of Man._|Liverpool._|Greenock._|
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
|From GREENOCK, | £0 10 0|£0 10 0| £0 10 0 | £0 0 0 |
| PORT PATRICK,| 0 0 0| 0 10 0| 0 10 0 | 0 10 0 |
| ISLE OF MAN, | 0 10 0| 0 0 0| 0 9 6 | 0 10 0 |
| LIVERPOOL, | 0 10 6| 0 9 6| 0 0 0 | 0 10 0 |
+------------------+---------+--------+-----------+----------+
Children under Twelve Years of Age Half Price.
ON DECK.
A COACH, £4 15 0
A CHAISE, 4 0 0
A GIO, 2 10 0
A HORSE, 2 10 0
DOGS, per couple, 0 10 0
Parcels Forwarded to the Isle of Man and all Parts of England.
The Proprietors will not be accountable for the Delivery of any
Parcel of the Value of Two Pounds and upwards, unless entered, and
paid for accordingly.
Passengers are put on Board and landed at Greenock, Douglas, and
Liverpool, free of expence.
The Passage between Greenock and Liverpool is generally made with
Twenty-five hours.
_May 1, 1826._
JAMES LITTLE, _Agent_, _Greenock_,
“THE MAJESTIC.”]
THE BRITISH AND IRISH COMPANY, ETC.
In 1836 the British and Irish Steam Packet Company was inaugurated. A
copy of an old sailing bill of that year makes curious reading. Its
reference to the “legal quays” is also interesting as reminding us of a
condition of affairs which has now passed away. The “legal quays” were
those reserved by the Government for the cross-channel mail steamers,
and also those at which special facilities were given to encourage
subsidised lines.
This was not, however, by any means the first company to run steamers
between Dublin and London, the City of Dublin Company having preceded
it by several years, as also did the Cork Steamship Company, and the
St. George Company. The first steamers of the British and Irish Company
were the _City of Limerick_, _Devonshire_, and _Shannon_, but it would
appear from the bill just quoted that the _Devonshire_ and _Shannon_
gave place to, or were supplemented by, the _Nottingham_ and _Mermaid_.
This bill, according to the company’s handbook, was issued in 1836. The
_Duke of Cornwall_, added to the fleet in 1842, was, like the others, a
little wooden paddle-steamer, and schooner-rigged; she was the last of
the vessels of this type purchased by the company. Three years later,
by which time the superiority of the screw for sea-going steamers had
already compelled recognition, the company showed its enterprise by
placing two auxiliary screw steamers, the _Rose_ and _Shamrock_, on its
London and Dublin service, each of them proving an unqualified success.
That decade will ever be memorable for the introduction of iron vessels
with screw propellers. In 1850 the company purchased the _Foyle_, one
of the finest iron steamers in existence at the time, and in the summer
of the next year established its regular service between Liverpool
and London, with calls both ways at the intermediate south of England
ports. It ran for a year a service between London and Limerick with the
screw steamer _Rose_, which was disposed of the next year. Two fine
steamers, the _Nile_ and the _Lady Eglinton_, were secured in 1852,
and the chartering of the latter vessel as a troop and storeship by
the Government during the Crimean War, and the wreck of the _Nile_ off
Cornwall, caused the cessation of the company’s London and Liverpool
service.
An interesting connection between the company and the transatlantic
service is found in the history of the invariably unsuccessful attempts
to inaugurate a service between Galway and America.
The _Lady Eglinton_ made two trips between the Irish port and the St.
Lawrence in 1858. This vessel was lengthened in 1865 by 30 feet. One of
the company’s boats, a little paddle-steamer named the _Mars_, which
maintained a local service between Dublin and Wexford, was a good
sea-boat, and sufficiently speedy for her size to attract the attention
of the agents of the Confederate States of America, who purchased her
for use as a blockade-runner. In this she was fairly successful for
some little time, but accounts differ as to what became of her. It is
stated that a blockade-runner of that name was wrecked on one of the
keys off Florida in endeavouring to escape from a Federal gunboat.
Another version is that the _Mars_ received a hostile shell between
wind and water, which exploded inside the ship so that she went down.
In 1865 the _Lady Wodehouse_ was built for the company at Dublin by
the shipbuilding firm of Walpole, Webb and Bewley, who four years
afterwards built the _Countess of Dublin_. The year 1870 was one of
the most important in the history of the company, for it bought the
steamers of Messrs. Malcomson’s London and Dublin Line, the _Cymba_
and _Avoca_, and has since had a monopoly of that service. The _Lady
Olive_, of 1096 tons, acquired in 1879, was the last iron vessel the
company had built; all the succeeding vessels have been of steel.
[Illustration: THE “LADY ROBERTS”
(BRITISH AND IRISH STEAM PACKET COMPANY).]
The engines of the earliest boats were of the usual side-lever type.
These in time gave place to compound engines, and the modern steel
vessels have triple-expansion engines. The present fleet consists
of the _Lady Olive_ and the _Lady Martin_, of 1365 tons gross, the
latter, built by Messrs. Workman and Clark at Belfast in 1888, being
the company’s first steel ship. The _Lady Hudson-Kinahan_, of 1375
tons, was built by the Ailsa Shipbuilding Company at Troon in 1891,
and this company also constructed in 1897 the _Lady Roberts_, of 1462
tons gross, while the _Lady Wolseley_ was launched in 1894 by the Naval
Construction Company at Barrow.
THE POWELL AND HOUGH LINES
These, like nearly all of the older coastal lines that were associated
with the firm of H. Powell and Co., started with small sailers
between Liverpool and London, with calls at the various ports on
the south coast. The history of the line has been one of continued
progress, and it maintains at the present time a regular service of
fast steamers between London and Liverpool, calling at Falmouth,
Plymouth, Southampton, and Portsmouth. Its earlier steamers, as was
only natural in the then imperfect state of steam navigation, were,
compared with the present boats, small, but were fully up to the
average of the coasting fleet, and in many cases could not be surpassed
by any vessels trading on the coast, or even by some making ocean
voyages. The _Augusta_, built in 1856, with a gross tonnage of 188,
and 50 horse-power, was a screw steamer, and carried three masts.
On the foremast were square sails. The company’s latest vessels are
the _Masterful_ and _Powerful_. The _Masterful_ is of 2600 tons and
is built of steel throughout, and the _Powerful_ is of 2200 tons; the
improvement in their accommodation compared with that of the boats of
fifty years ago is as noticeable as is the increase in size. These
vessels are two of the few in the coasting trade fitted with submarine
signalling apparatus. The Powell Line also has cargo services between
Liverpool and Bristol and a number of ports on the south coast, and
between Manchester and Bristol Channel ports and certain south-coast
ports.
Associated with this line are the steamers of Messrs. Samuel Hough and
Co., the vessels of the two companies sailing as a rule alternately.
ALEXANDER LAIRD AND CO.
The St. George Company withdrew from the Clyde and Mersey trade in
1822, and in 1823 Alexander Laird and Co. began the Liverpool, Clyde,
and Isle of Man service with the steamer _Henry Bell_, built by Wilson
of Liverpool. In 1824 Mr. Laird placed on the Glasgow and Liverpool
service the _James Watt_, which had been a couple of years with the
General Steam Navigation Company. She was rigged as a three-masted
schooner, and had the distinction of being the first steamer entered
at Lloyd’s. Laird’s service between Glasgow and Inverness was started
in 1825, and in the following year the sailings were changed from
fortnightly to weekly.
In 1827 Messrs. T. Cameron and Co. started a service of steamers
between Glasgow and the north and west of Ireland, but in 1867 it was
taken over entirely by Messrs. Laird and Co.
[Illustration: THE “AUGUSTA” (POWELL LINE, 1856).]
The _Northman_ (1847) and _Irishman_ (1854) were among the earliest
iron steamers built; they belonged to the Glasgow and Dublin Screw
Steam Packet Company, under which name Messrs. Cameron ran a service
between those ports and were opposed by the Sligo Steam Navigation
Company until an arrangement was made between Laird’s and the Sligo
Company. The _Irishman_ was the last steamer to carry the white funnel
with a black top which was the distinguishing-mark of the old St.
George Company. Other vessels of increasing size and importance were
added from time to time and the Laird Company’s fleet now comprises
twelve ships, of which the latest is the _Rowan_, a beautiful steel
vessel of about 1500 tons, launched in 1909.
CHAPTER IV
RAILWAY COMPANIES AND THEIR STEAM-SHIPS
The railway companies early saw the advantages to be gained by the
addition of steam-ship services to and from the ports to which their
lines ran. Steam-ship owning by the railway companies was not permitted
by Parliament at one time, and the proposal, whenever brought forward,
was strongly opposed by the private steam-ship owners. The first
company to enter the field was probably the North Lancashire Railways,
which were subsequently absorbed by the London and North-Western
Railway Company, and which, in conjunction with the City of Dublin
Steam Packet Company, instituted in 1844 a steam-ship service between
Fleetwood and Dublin, the _Hibernia_ being the first steamer employed
for the purpose. The venture was a success and brought to the Dublin
Company such an immense increase in its trade between England and
Ireland that in the following year the directors decided to add to
their line three auxiliary screw schooners and five paddle-steamers.
In 1839, the Government arranged that the mails should be despatched
every morning and evening from Liverpool to the Irish capital, via
Kingstown, on the arrival of the mail trains from London. The morning
service was by Admiralty steam packet and the evening service by the
boats of the Dublin Steam Packet Company. The strong rivalry which
immediately sprang up between the two services was intensified by the
agreement between the North Lancashire Railways and the City of Dublin
Company, and resulted in a vast improvement being effected in the
steamers employed. For ten years this battle of the services was waged
with unabated vigour on both sides, but finally in 1850 the Admiralty
withdrew their steamers and left their rivals in full possession of the
carriage of the Irish mail service.
The Dublin Company was not, however, long permitted to enjoy the
fruits of their well-earned victory over the Admiralty, but was almost
immediately involved in a similar conflict with the Chester and
Holyhead Railway Company, this time over the conveyance of the mails
from Holyhead to Dublin. Recognising the importance of Holyhead as a
port, the directors of the Dublin Company had not only placed some of
their vessels there, but had also put in a tender for the Trans-Irish
Channel mail service, which was accepted by the Admiralty. The Chester
and Holyhead Railway Company, who were also steamship owners, were
under the impression that no one could compete with them, and believing
that they could obtain their own terms from the Admiralty neglected
to tender. Prior, however, to the ratification by the Government of
the Admiralty’s acceptance of the City of Dublin Company’s tender,
the railway company, by some means best known to itself, obtained
information of what was going on and used every means in its power
to bring pressure on the Government to prevent the conclusion of the
contract. These efforts were so far successful that fresh tenders
were asked for by the Admiralty. From the facts which have since been
made public, it would appear that the Dublin Company were not at all
fairly treated in the first instance, because the amount at which they
tendered having been allowed to leak out, the Chester and Holyhead
Railway Company was enabled to undercut them. Fearing that similar
tactics might be employed on the second contract, the Dublin Company,
in consideration of the importance of the issue involved, put in at
a very much lower figure than on the former occasion, secured the
contract, and without loss of time inaugurated their new service.
Further complications ensued owing to the persistent attempts made by
the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company to wrest the contract from
their opponents. They, however, were unsuccessful and the matter was
finally settled in favour of the Dublin Company by the appointment of a
Parliamentary Committee, which reported in favour of the arrangements
already made.
Before many of the railway companies became steam-ship owners they
made working arrangements with existing steam-ship lines. This method
of dealing with the passenger, coasting, and over-sea traffic was due,
not to any lack of initiative on the part of those responsible for
the management of the railways, but to the uncompromising antagonism
of the steam-ship companies, who objected to the railway companies
being permitted to own steamers. A Bill empowering the Chester and
Holyhead Railway Company to purchase and work steamboats was brought
before Parliament in 1848, but was strongly opposed by the steam-ship
companies on the ground that it would create undue competition and
would interfere with their existing rights, and further, that over-sea
competition was outside the legitimate sphere of a railway company’s
operations. The directors and large shareholders of the Chester
and Holyhead Company retaliated by forming themselves into a small
independent firm to run steamboats between Holyhead and Ireland. The
necessary capital was subscribed, and four new iron passenger steamers,
the _Anglia_, _Cambria_, _Hibernia_, and _Scotia_, were built. They
were each of 589 tons gross, and were 207 feet long, 26 feet beam, and
14 feet in depth, having a draught of 8 feet 10 inches. Each carried
535 passengers. Parliament was thus placed in a difficult position,
because even if the Bill were thrown out, the boats were advertised
to run on August 1, 1848, and as they belonged to a private firm the
Legislature and the opposition companies were powerless to interfere.
A month later, at the half-yearly meeting of the Chester and Holyhead
Railway Company, the directors reported that their Bill had been
successfully passed, and that the boats had commenced running on the
advertised date. These boats were able to attain a speed of from 14 to
15 knots per hour. The opposition of the steam-ship companies, although
not entirely killed, was less effective than formerly. The battle
was won by the railway companies, and steam-ship owning by railway
companies is now regarded as a matter of course.
[Illustration: THE TURBINE STEAMER “MARYLEBONE” (G.C. RAILWAY).]
[Illustration: THE “CAMBRIA” (L. & N.W. RAILWAY).]
Along the south-east and south coasts, between Harwich and Falmouth,
the greater part of the Anglo-Continental passenger traffic, with a
large amount of goods traffic, is carried by railway-owned steamers.
To meet the heavy requirements of the cross-channel service between
Dover and Calais, the South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company run
steamboats. These are the large paddle-steamers _Empress_, _Dover_,
_Calais_, _Lord Warden_, _Le Nord_ and the _Pas-de-Calais_, and
the three turbine steamers _Queen_, _Victoria_, and _Empress_. The
_Victoria_ was built by Messrs. W. Denny Bros., Dumbarton, and is one
of the finest boats owned by the company. On her trials she attained
a speed of over 22¹⁄₂ knots, being 1³⁄₄ knots in excess of the
guarantee and sufficient to make the Channel passage under the hour.
The _Empress_, built by the same firm, is generally similar to the
_Victoria_; she is 310 feet long, 40 feet in moulded breadth, and 24
feet 6 inches deep from the awning deck, which extends from stem to
stern. The rudder is of the balanced type, of a form specially designed
by the builders for their turbine vessels, and is worked by a steam
tiller, controlled on the flying bridge by a telemotor. For convenience
in canting and backing out of English and French harbours the vessel is
fitted with a large bow rudder worked by steam steering-gear controlled
by a wheel on the flying bridge. The propelling machinery consists
of three turbines, each driving a separate shaft and propeller. For
their Folkestone-Boulogne service the company also have the steamers
_Princess of Wales_, _Duchess of York_, _Grace_, and _Mabel_, each of
which is exceedingly fast and powerful.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RLY. CO.
A considerable amount of difficulty was experienced by the London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company in their preliminary attempt
to open up the Newhaven-Dieppe route in 1847. As Brighton was a very
unprotected departure and arrival station, and they were unable to come
to terms with the Shoreham Harbour authorities, the company decided on
Newhaven as the base for their cross-channel operations. The Brighton,
Newhaven, and Dieppe steamers carried both passengers and cargo. As,
at that time, it was illegal for railway companies to own steamboats,
the South-Eastern Railway Company entered a complaint, and the London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company were mulcted in a heavy
fine for the cross-channel trading that had already been carried on.
The service was in consequence completely stopped and the boats sold.
For three years Anglo-Continental trade was left to private steamship
owners, and then an arrangement was entered into with Messrs. Maples
and Morris to run steamers ostensibly on their own account, but really
on behalf of the company. Among the earlier steamers thus employed
were the _Ayrshire Lassie_, _Culloden_, and _Rothesay Castle_, all
built at Glasgow. The extra amount of business anticipated from the
Great Exhibition of 1851 necessitated fresh arrangements being made in
connection with the service, and an agreement was entered into by which
Mr. Maples was to run his steamers for seven years. In the meantime
the company endeavoured, but unsuccessfully, to obtain powers to own
steamers themselves. At the expiration of Maples’ contract, it was
extended for another four years. During the second period the powers
for which the company had been asking were granted by Parliament, but
Maples would not release them till his contract expired. When he did
leave the service he took with him the _Paris_, _Rouen_, _Dieppe_,
_Marco_, _Hope_--the latter an iron brig noted for having about seven
feet of false keel--and another, and £38,000 in hard cash, which he
subsequently lost. The three Scotch boats mentioned ran through the
whole of the summer of 1851, at the end of which the _Aquila_ was
also chartered for the company. Two of Maples’ privately-owned boats
on the Newhaven-Dieppe service were the screw steamers _Collier_ and
_Ladybird_. The latter was about 160 feet long, of 150 horse-power and
steamed 11 knots. She was fitted with inverted geared engines to work
the screw shaft, the ratio being 2¹⁄₂ to 1. Subsequently she went to
Australia, and in 1854 carried the first Sydney to Melbourne mail. One
of the most remarkable of the earlier boats employed by the London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company was the _Wave Queen_. She
was built in 1852 by Messrs. Robinson Russell and Co. for a Belgian
gentleman, whom she did not suit, and was sent to Newhaven by Mr.
Scott Russell until he could get the _Lyons_ and _Orleans_ ready for
use. She was of iron with a length of 200 feet, but her breadth was
little more than 13 feet. For her beam she was one of the longest boats
ever constructed, and consequently attracted a considerable amount
of attention. Her engines were of 80 horse-power. She had clipper
bows with very fine lines even for so narrow a vessel, and she had
also an exceedingly long overhanging counter. A special feature of
her construction was the total absence of sheer, and she enjoyed the
reputation of being a swift and dry boat. According to contemporary
records she was held to be the smallest vessel then afloat capable of
attaining the speed required. Her engines were of the oscillating type
and made fifty revolutions per minute, and steam at 25 lb. pressure
was supplied by two tubular boilers. These were 15·7 feet long, 10·5
feet wide, and 6·5 feet high, having a total grate area of 100 square
feet and 2342 square feet of heating surface. The aggregate weight of
engines, boilers, and water was 55¹⁄₂ tons. Her paddle-wheels, which
were unusually small for her length, were 12·4 feet in diameter, and
each had sixteen feathering floats 6 feet by 2 feet 6 inches, her
average speed being 15¹⁄₂ knots and her load displacement 225 tons with
a gross register of 196 tons. On one of her trips she ran into the West
Pier fourteen feet, but although she remained fixed during one tide she
did not start even a rivet, and was got off on the next tide without
having admitted a drop of water.
The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company started their
Littlehampton trade in 1866. In 1875 the company acquired from Messrs.
Elder the celebrated _Paris_, commonly spoken of as the most handsome
steamer that ever crossed the Channel. Larger and faster vessels being
required about this time for the Dieppe and Honfleur routes, they
purchased the _Honfleur_ from Messrs. Gurley Bros. She was 376 gross
tonnage, had engines of 45 n.h.p., with two cylinders of 18 inches and
34 inches diameter and a piston stroke of 18 inches. The twin-screw
_Rennes_, built in 1866, was sent to the Thames to be overhauled,
and her engines were compounded by Messrs. J. and W. Dudgeon, the
result being a great increase in speed and a reduction of somewhere
about 45 per cent. in coal consumption. Two new screw steamers, the
_Newhaven_ and _Dieppe_, were built for the company by La Société des
Forges et Chantiers at Havre, but owing to structural imperfections,
a considerable amount of trouble was experienced before they could
be made to meet the requirements of Lloyd’s and the Board of Trade.
At their best they were very slow. A great increase in traffic being
expected from the Paris Exhibition of 1878, two paddle-steamers, the
_Brighton_ and _Victoria_, were ordered from Messrs. Jno. Elder and
Co. of Govan. Their bridges were filled with the first steam-steering
gear ever seen at Newhaven. A larger type of boat than had been used
heretofore was adopted in 1882, when the _Normandy_ and _Brittany_
were purchased from the Fairfield Company of Glasgow, and in 1885 the
_Lyons_ and _Italy_ were obtained from Govan for the cargo trade.
The vessels now employed are the _Arundel_, _Brighton_, _Calvados_,
_Dieppe_, _Paris_, _Sussex_, and _Trouville_.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RLY. CO., ETC.
Farther westward on the south coast, an equally important line
of communication between England and France is maintained by the
steamboat service now carried on by the London and South-Western
Railway Company from Southampton to Havre and Honfleur, St. Malo and
the Channel Islands. The early boats employed in the cross-channel
traffic were all of much the same type and size on whatever line they
were engaged, and as the same limitations of ports applied to those
run by the South-Western Railway Company as to the steamers of other
companies, there was little to choose between them in regard to speed,
seaworthiness, or accommodation.
During the early years of the past century the mail and passenger
service between England and the Channel Islands was performed by
cutters similar to those employed in the French mail service between
Dover and Calais. Later the mails were conveyed under the auspices of
the Admiralty from Weymouth to Guernsey and Jersey by the ships of H.M.
Navy, _Meteor_, _Dasher_, _Wildfire_, and _Cuckoo_. The _Dasher_ was
employed until very recent years in guarding the fisheries off Jersey.
The first records of the steam-packet services from Southampton are
dated 1835, and mention a service between Southampton and Havre twice
a week in each direction by the _Camilla_, of 186 tons; and between
Southampton and the Channel Islands by the _Ariadne_, 218 tons, these
vessels being the property of the South of England Steam Navigation
Company, who appear to have been the pioneers of these services. Even
at that time there was opposition on the Channel Islands Station by the
_Lord Beresford_ and on the Havre station by the _Apollo_, both vessels
belonging to the British and Foreign Steam Navigation Company. About
one hundred passengers were carried to the Channel Islands on each trip
during the summer season of 1835.
One of the earliest steamers employed in the Channel Islands service
was the _Lady de Saumarez_ (January 1836) of 350 tons, belonging to the
British and Foreign Steam Navigation Company, with two 40-horse-power
engines and fitted with Seaward’s improved vibrating paddles.
In May 1836 the _Monarch_ was launched from the shipyard of Rubie
and Blaker, Northam, and was the largest steam vessel which had been
constructed on the Itchen. Her dimensions were 140 feet long, 23 feet
beam, 360 tons, and she was built in four months. Her engines, of
120 horse-power, were supplied by Horseley and Co. of Tipton, near
Birmingham, and the vessel was sent to London to receive them. The
_Monarch_ was placed on the Havre station by her owners, the South of
England Steam Navigation Company. On June 2, 1836, the _Atalanta_, of
400 tons and 120 horse-power, was launched from the yard of Mr. Thomas
White, West Cowes. She began running on the Channel Islands station for
the South of England Steam Navigation Company during the month of July.
The _Atalanta_ was lengthened by Mr. White some years later, her bows
being cut off and up-ended in his yard for a workmen’s shelter. She
ended her days as a coal-hulk in Jersey.
In July 1836 the _Watersprite_, a vessel of 200 horse-power, was put on
the Channel Islands station by the British and Foreign Steam Navigation
Company, which two years later became the Commercial Steam Packet
Company. This company owned also the _Grand Turk_, a vessel of 500 tons
and 300 horse-power, and she was reputed to be the fastest and most
handsomely furnished ship of her day. Her saloon was 50 feet in length
by 30 feet wide. She ran both to Havre and the Channel Islands, and in
1841-1842 had opposed to her the steamer _Robert Burns_.
The _Grand Turk_ was chartered in 1848 for two years to run between
Alexandria, Beyrout, Tripoli, and other Mediterranean ports with
passengers and mails. On her return she plied between Southampton and
Morlaix for the South-Western Steam Packet Company.
The _Transit_, another of the old steamers of the South-Western Steam
Packet Company, was running in 1836 under the ownership of the British
and Foreign Steam Navigation Company, between Southampton and Spanish
ports, carrying cattle and general cargo. She is recorded to have made
the passage from Lisbon to Falmouth in three and a half days during
the winter of 1836. When withdrawn from this trade she was run to the
Channel Islands by the South-Western Steam Packet Company, and she,
too, ended her days as a coal-hulk.
Between 1838 and 1845 the mail service between England and the Channel
Islands appears to have been performed by a steam-packet service from
Weymouth, of which no reliable records can be discovered. The transfer
of this mail service to the steamers of the South-Western Steam Packet
Company from Southampton took place on April 1, 1845. But in October
1899, when the steamers of the London and South-Western Railway Company
from Southampton and the Great Western Railway Company from Weymouth
were joined in the Channel Islands service the mails were once more
carried via Weymouth three days a week during the winter months.
The advertisement columns of the _Hampshire Advertiser_ of 1845 refer
to the “South-Western Steam Packet Company” as the owners of the
cross-channel steamers, and they seemed to have remained so until 1860,
when their steamers were taken over by the London and South-Western
Railway Company.
The merchants of the Channel Islands started an opposition company,
called the Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Packet Company, with the
steamers _Aguila_, _Cygnus_, and _Brighton_. This opposition continued
until 1888, when the service was taken up by the Great Western
Railway Company. After keeping up a keen opposition to the London and
South-Western Railway Company for eleven years an amicable arrangement
was entered into for a joint service, which still continues.
In consequence of the opposition of the Weymouth and Channel Islands
Steam Packet Company a South-Western Railway Company’s steamer, the
_Wonder_, was sent to Weymouth. This ran until 1860, when the Weymouth
service was given up by the London and South-Western Railway and all
their energies were concentrated upon the Southampton route.
Although steamers ran from Southampton to Jersey and thence to St. Malo
from 1845, the regular connection between Jersey and France was by a
French company’s steamer called the _Comet_. This company was bought
out by the London and South-Western Railway Company in 1867. The latter
company then commenced running their steamer _Dumfries_ regularly from
Jersey to Granville and St. Malo in connection with the Southampton and
Channel Islands service.
In 1860 a direct service was opened between Southampton and St. Malo by
the new iron screw steamer _St. Malo_, the first of this type built for
the London and South-Western Railway.
The paddle-steamer _South-Western_, the first iron steamer employed in
the Channel Islands service, had a speed of about 12 knots. She was
131 tons net and was sold in 1863. Her floats were taken off and after
being rigged for the purpose she was sailed out to Japan.
After the _South-Western_ came the _Wonder_, _Express_, _Courier_, and
_Dispatch_. They each had a speed of thirteen to fourteen knots. The
_Express_ was built and launched in six weeks. At the time she was laid
down the engines put into her were in the yard ready for a Government
steamer, but were used for the _Express_ instead. This same _Express_
was the steamer which brought Louis Philippe a fugitive from France in
1848, her commander on that occasion being Fred Paul, R.N., who had
been lent by the Government to the company for that purpose. Louis
Philippe, disguised as a fisherman, crossed from Honfleur to Havre
in a fishing smack and was put on board the _Express_ lying in the
avant-port of Havre. As soon as his feet touched her deck, Commander
Paul, who was lying under a full head of steam, slipped her moorings,
steamed away and landed the fugitive at Littlehampton. A brass plate
stating the facts was fastened to the sofa in the saloon, on which
Louis Philippe slept. The _Express_ was lost on September 20, 1859, on
the passage from Jersey to Southampton in the Jailer Passage off the
Corbière Lighthouse, Jersey.
The next steamers acquired by the company were the _Alliance_ in
1855, _Havre_, _Normandy_, and _Southampton_ in 1860, and _Brittany_
in 1864. Until she was outclassed by larger and faster ships the
_Alliance_ was on the Havre route. She was afterwards transferred to
the service between Jersey and St. Malo, and was sold in 1900.
The _Havre_ ran alternately to her name-port and the Channel Islands
until her career was ended on February 16, 1875, by the Platte Boue, a
sunken rock in the Russel Passage near Guernsey. There was no loss of
life and the mails were also saved.
Equal ill-fortune attended the _Normandy_. This boat, which was
employed almost exclusively on the Channel Islands service, was
sunk on March 17, 1870, in collision with the screw steamer _Mary_
while on the outward passage, some twenty-five of the passengers
and crew being drowned. The _Southampton_, built by Palmer in 1860,
was reckoned the strongest vessel of her tonnage at that time. In
1880 she was lengthened and given new engines and boilers by Day,
Summers and Co., and was engaged in the Channel Islands trade until
1880, when the service was entirely performed by screw steamers. She
was then transferred to the Havre route and continued running there
until the present twin-screw steamers, _Columbia_ and _Alma_, came
out and superseded her. Her last piece of active service was to make
a trip round the fleet at Spithead on the occasion of the Jubilee
Naval Review in 1897. The _Brittany_, built at Cubitt Town in 1864,
was also employed in the Channel Islands trade until 1880, when,
like the _Southampton_, she was transferred to the Havre route until
1894. Her last appearance was at the same review. She was lengthened
thirty feet and given new engines and boilers in 1883. The company in
1868 purchased for their Channel Islands service the _Waverley_, a
paddle-steamer of about fifteen knots, which had been employed running
from Silloth to Dublin. She was the finest ship which had yet been
employed on that service. She came to grief on June 5, 1873, when she
struck upon the Platte Boue rock. The whole of the passengers, mails,
and baggage were brought off in safety.
[Illustration: THE TURBINE STEAMER “ST. PATRICK” (G.W. RAILWAY).]
The outbreak of hostilities between France and Germany in 1870 brought
about the purchase by the company of the paddle-steamers _Alice_ and
_Fannie_. These each had a speed of fifteen knots, and were placed on
the Southampton-St. Malo route and conveyed horses and provisions for
the French. Both ships ran backwards and forwards for some months at
their highest possible speed, only remaining at the quay side just long
enough to load and discharge cargo.
The _Waverley_ was also employed during that period running to and
from Havre taking British provisions for the French, and conveying to
England fugitive French families and all the valuables they could bring
with them. These valuables were transhipped in Southampton Water to a
steamer of the French Transatlantique Company, which was moored there
for that purpose.
The _Fannie_ and _Alice_ ran alternately upon the Havre and Channel
Islands stations until 1887, when they were sold out of commission.
They were always favourites owing to their speed and spacious deck and
cabin accommodation.
In 1871 the company purchased the paddle-steamer _Wolf_, which had been
sunk for some time in Belfast Lough. She was employed, until sold in
1900, on the Havre route.
The first screw steamer to be employed in the Channel Islands mail and
passenger service was the steam yacht _Griffin_, purchased in 1865 from
a Mr. Beard, a Scotch iron-master.
The _Diana_ was the first of the new screw boats built for the company
and was launched in 1877, and in 1881 was supplemented by the _Ella_
and in 1882 by the _Hilda_. Nine years later these vessels, together
with the paddle-steamers _Brittany_ and _Southampton_, were in their
turn superseded by the twin-screw steamers _Lydia_ and _Stella_. The
latter had a very successful career until March 30, 1899, when she
foundered on the Casquets, her sailings being taken by the _Alberta_.
A further change was made in 1894, the _Southampton_, _Brittany_, and
_Wolf_ being replaced by the _Columbia_ and _Alma_, which were faster
and more up-to-date boats. In 1896 the _Princess Ena_, a twin-screw
vessel, was launched to replace the _Hilda_, and the _Vera_ was also
purchased as an auxiliary boat for the Channel Islands and Havre
routes. Numerous additions have since been made by the company to their
fleet, which now numbers twenty-six vessels. These are the _Ada_,
_Alberta_, _Alexandra_, _Alma_, _Atalanta_, _Bertha_, _Cherbourg_,
_Columbia_, _Duchess of Albany_, _Duchess of Connaught_, _Duchess of
Edinburgh_, _Duchess of Fife_, _Duchess of Kent_, _Ella_, _Frederica_,
_Guernsey_, _Honfleur_, _Laura_, _Lydia_, _Lymington_, _Princess Ena_,
_Princess Margaret_, _Solent_, _South-Western_, _Vera_, and _Victoria_.
These steamers all carry sufficient coal for the out and home trip,
with an additional quantity to meet any contingency that may arise.
GREAT WESTERN RLY. CO.
Another important south-coast mail and passenger service is carried
on by the Great Western Railway Company from its southern terminus at
Weymouth to the Channel Islands and Brittany. Formerly this company
also conveyed mails and passengers between England and Ireland by
their line of steamers from Milford to Rosslare. This has since been
discontinued in favour of the Fishguard-Rosslare route.
GREAT EASTERN RLY. CO.
Working arrangements exist between certain of the railway companies and
the steam-ship lines, one of the most important being the joint service
maintained by the Great Eastern Railway Company and the General Steam
Navigation Company from London to Hamburg, via Harwich. The steamers on
this route sail twice weekly. There is also an agreement between the
Great Eastern Railway Company and Danish Royal Mail steamers of the
Forenade Line of Copenhagen by which these vessels convey passengers
three times per week between Harwich and Esbjerg. The Great Eastern
Railway Company also maintains a fleet of fast and powerful steamers
for their Anglo-Continental mail and passenger business. This was
started in 1863, when the company chartered two steamers for carrying
goods between Harwich and Rotterdam. This service was made a biweekly
one in 1864, and a similar service was also run to and from Antwerp.
The company then introduced four new steamers specially built for the
trade and conveying both passengers and cargo. In 1882, owing to the
development of the traffic, the Harwich services to and from Rotterdam
and Antwerp were extended to every week day.
[Illustration: THE R.M. TURBINE STEAMER “COPENHAGEN” (G.E. RAILWAY).]
The Hook of Holland quay at the mouth of the River Maas was finished in
June 1893 and the company’s steamers began to call there. This greatly
accelerated the service to Berlin and other parts of North Germany and
a daily service was then started. In the same year the company acquired
larger steamers for this service. A new railway line round Rotterdam
was opened in May 1899 which shortened the journey to Berlin; and in
May 1903 an express train was run between the Hook of Holland and
Berlin in connection with the steamers. Since the opening of this route
the passenger traffic has trebled.
The company now have a fleet of eleven fast and powerful turbine
and twin-screw steamers, all of which are fitted with apparatus for
wireless telegraphy and submarine signalling. The latest addition is
the Royal Mail turbine steamer _Copenhagen_, with a speed of 20 knots,
on the Harwich-Hook of Holland route. In her passenger accommodation
she has many features of the latest type of Atlantic liner.
GREAT CENTRAL RLY. CO.
Farther along the east coast, the Great Central Railway Company
maintains a service between Grimsby and several of the Continental
ports. The company in 1864 secured parliamentary powers to run
steamers to Hamburg, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Flushing, Lubeck, Stockholm,
Copenhagen, Revel, Cronstadt, St. Petersburg, and Königsberg.
Subsequently they purchased the Anglo-French Company’s fleet and
began to run steamers to Hamburg in July 1865. In April 1866, the
railway company initiated a new service of steamers between Grimsby
and Rotterdam, and in the August of the following year the service was
extended to Antwerp. On December 1, 1885, the sailings between Grimsby
and Hamburg were increased from two to four per week; and on July 1,
1891, a daily service was established. The sailings between Grimsby and
Rotterdam were increased in September 1906 from two to three per week,
and early in 1907 two new 18-knot turbine steamers _Marylebone_ and
_Immingham_ were placed on this service.
In essential particulars these are sister ships, though differing
somewhat in their internal arrangements. The _Immingham_ has a length
over all of 282 feet, beam 41 feet, and depth moulded 21 feet 6
inches. Accommodation is provided for seventy first and twenty-four
second-class passengers, and three hundred in the third class,
besides one thousand tons of cargo. She is driven by three Parsons
turbines actuating three shafts. These two steamers marked a new era
in the Continental service from the Humber, being far in advance in
accommodation and speed of anything hitherto employed.
LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RLY. CO.
On the west coast the principal part of the cross-channel, Irish
mail, passenger, and cargo traffic is divided between the services
organised by the London and North-Western Railway Company, the Midland
Railway Company, and the Great Western Railway Company. For four
years after the London and North-Western Railway Company had absorbed
the Chester and Holyhead Railway, they continued to work the Irish
service with the boats acquired from the latter company. A new type
of paddle-boat, 230 feet in length, with carrying capacity of 700
tons, their speed being fourteen knots per hour, and conveying both
passengers and cargo, was then put on for the service. The first of
these, the _Stanley_, was built by Messrs. Caird of Greenock, and had
as sister boat the _Alexandra_, constructed by Laird of Birkenhead.
These vessels did excellent work and were afterwards supplemented
by the _Countess of Erne_, _Admiral Moorsom_, _Duke of Sutherland_,
_Duchess of Sutherland_, and _Edith_, all boats of a similar type. Two
of these, the _Duchess of Sutherland_ and the _Edith_, were in 1888 and
1892 respectively converted into twin-screw steamers. The _Duchess_
was sold in 1908, but the _Edith_ is still employed in the North Wall
cargo service. This service was, in 1876, supplemented by a day express
boat in each direction between Holyhead and Dublin North Wall, two
paddle-steamers, _Rose_ and _Shamrock_, being built by Messrs. Laird
Bros. of Birkenhead. A night service in each direction was started in
1880 with the _Lily_ and _Violet_, built by Messrs. Laird. They were
each 310 feet long and had a gross tonnage of 1035 tons, with a speed
of 19 knots per hour. The _Lily_ was sold in 1900 and ran for some time
between Liverpool and the Isle of Man. The _Violet_ was also disposed
of two years later. In 1884, the _Banshee_, another paddle-boat of
the _Lily_ type, was built for the company by Messrs. Laird, and
ran until February 1906, when she was sold out of the service. On
December 15, 1897, the _Cambria_, the first of a new class of steel
twin-screw steamers which almost equal the great ocean liners in speed,
magnificence, and comfort, was placed on the North Wall service. She
was followed by the _Hibernia_ on February 2, the _Anglia_ on May 2,
1900, and by the _Scotia_ on April 23, 1902. The _Scotia_ is 337 feet 6
inches in length, has a moulded breadth of 39 feet, with a depth to the
awning deck of 29 feet 6 inches. The twin screws are driven by two sets
of triple-expansion engines of 7000 horse-power, the eight single-ended
boilers giving steam at a pressure of 160 lb. per square inch. There
are four cylinders to each set of engines, which are balanced on the
new Schlick principle, so as to avoid vibration. Even in the worst
weather she can accomplish a speed of 21 knots. Her accommodation
provides for 600 saloon and 700 third-class passengers.
A direct service between Holyhead and Greenore was opened in 1873
with the three paddle-driven boats _Eleanor_, _Isabella_, and _Earl
Spencer_. These served until 1895, when, at the suggestion of Captain
Binney, the company’s Marine Superintendent, three new steamers
of greater speed and capacity--the _Rosstrevor_, _Connemara_, and
_Galtee-More_--were ordered for the service. These vessels are 280 feet
in length, with a gross tonnage of 1000 tons, and a maximum speed of
18 knots. The engines are triple-expansion of 2500 horse-power, and
the boats are propelled by twin screws. In 1908 the _Rosstrevor_ was
replaced by the _Rathmore_, the former vessel being converted into a
cargo and cattle steamer. The _Rathmore_ is 300 feet long, and has a
gross tonnage of 1600 tons; her engines are of 6180 horse-power and
give a speed of 20¹⁄₂ knots per hour.
[Illustration: THE “SCOTIA” (L. & N.W. RAILWAY).]
The goods, cattle, and general cargo traffic between Holyhead and
North Wall, Dublin, is served by eight cargo boats, all of which are
twin-screw ships. They convey third-class passengers but are not
provided with any first-class accommodation.
For very many years the Midland Railway Company were partners in
the Barrow Steam Navigation Company, whose fleet maintained a daily
service between Barrow and Belfast and, during the season, between
Barrow and the Isle of Man. When Heysham Harbour was opened in
September 1904, the Midland Company put on a fleet of seven powerful
and magnificently fitted steamers of the most modern type for their
Heysham-Belfast service. They also bought out the other partners in
the Barrow Steam Navigation Company, which has now been dissolved.
Two of the vessels formerly belonging to the Barrow Steam Navigation
Company were disposed of at a comparatively recent date and have
been broken up. As regards the existing fleet, the _Londonderry_ is
installed with the Lodge-Muirhead system of wireless telegraphy. The
_Antrim_ and the _Donegal_ will shortly be similarly equipped. There is
a wireless telegraphic station at Heysham and wireless communication
was first established on the company’s service nearly six years ago.
The _Londonderry_ and _Manxman_ are propelled by turbines, whilst the
_Antrim_, _Donegal_, _Duchess of Devonshire_, and _City of Belfast_
are twin screws. During the season, the Isle of Man service between
Heysham and Douglas is maintained by the _Manxman_ and the _Duchess
of Devonshire_. Except on Sundays, a nightly service between Heysham
and Belfast is carried on regularly by the _Antrim_, _Donegal_, and
_Londonderry_, whilst the _City of Belfast_ runs on alternate days from
Barrow and Belfast.
CHAPTER V
OPENING OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE
When once the ability of steam-ships to make open-sea passages such as
those between Liverpool, Belfast, and Glasgow had been demonstrated,
shipowners began to turn their attention to the possibility of steamers
crossing the Atlantic. The first steam vessel which is known to have
made the crossing is the _Conde de Patmella_. Unfortunately very little
is known about this boat. She sailed from Liverpool on October 20,
1820, for Lisbon, and arrived there in the remarkably short time of
four days. Thence she sailed for the Brazils, being the first steam
vessel to cross the Atlantic from east to west. In the year 1819 the
_Savannah_, a sailing vessel using an auxiliary steam-engine, crossed
the Atlantic, but as this vessel sailed nearly the whole of the way
and scarcely used her engines except when leaving or entering port,
she cannot be described as having made the first steam crossing,
although this claim is often put forward by American writers. But
this voyage of the _Savannah_ is of great historical interest, as
it proved what many had doubted, viz., the possibility of a sailing
vessel with steam auxiliary crossing the Atlantic, and carrying enough
coals for her purpose. This boat when built was not intended for a
steamer. Messrs. Scarborough and Isaacs of Savannah thought that a
sail-plus-steam crossing could be made, and they accordingly instructed
Moses Rogers (who, it has already been mentioned, had made the first
sea trip by steamboat from New York to the Delaware in 1807 with
Stevens’ _Phœnix_) to look out for a hull in which an engine could be
placed for the experiment. He found the _Savannah_ then being built by
Francis Ficket, of the firm of Ficket and Crocker, at New York, and she
was accordingly purchased for Scarborough and Isaacs. Her engine is
stated to have been built at Morristown, New Jersey, by Stephen Vail,
though Daniel Dod[45] of Elizabeth, New Jersey--one of the foremost
marine engineers of America at that time--who built the boilers and
paddle-wheels, is sometimes said to have been responsible for the
engines also. The paddle-wheels were constructed with eight radii,
which were hinged at the axle, so that they could be folded and removed
from the paddle-shaft, and stowed on deck in dirty weather. She was
a full-rigged ship of 350 tons burden, 130 feet in length by 26 feet
beam, and 16¹⁄₂ feet depth. Her trial trip in New York Bay in March
1819 was considered satisfactory, although the steam pressure employed
was only 2 lb., while the estimated pressure was 10 lb. On March 28,
1819, she sailed for Savannah. Her engines were not used until April 2,
when her wheels were placed on the paddle-shafts. They were shipped and
unshipped at intervals, until the conclusion of the voyage on April 6.
At Charleston, South Carolina, President Monroe, of “Doctrine” fame,
visited her. She then returned to Savannah, and sailed thence for
Liverpool on May 24 carrying neither passengers nor cargo.
[45] Dod was killed in 1823 by the explosion of a boiler on a steamer
whose engines he was testing after having made some experimental
alterations.
On this first voyage to Savannah, which occupied 207 hours, the engines
were running for only 4¹⁄₂ hours. On June 17 she arrived off the coast
of Ireland, where the revenue cruiser _Kite_ pursued her, under the
impression that she was a ship on fire, and three days later she was
off Liverpool. The voyage occupied 29 days 11 hours, and according to
the record kept by Rogers, which is now preserved in the United States
National Museum, steam was raised six times on the voyage and the
engines were run for a total of 80 hours. The reason the engines were
used so little was that she had a very insufficient supply of fuel. She
steamed up the Mersey, her arrival--the arrival of the first vessel
under steam from America--being witnessed by thousands of persons, some
of whom could hardly believe their eyes, so often had the voyage been
described as impossible of accomplishment.
Extracts from the _Savannah’s_ log read:
“_Saturday, May 22, 1819._--These twenty-four hours begins with fresh
breezes at N.E. at 7 A.M. got steam up, winded ship, and hove up the
anchor, at 9 A.M. started with the steam from Savannah, at 12 A.M.
anchored at Tybee stowed the boat and spars and lashed them. Latter
part light breezes at S.E. and flying clouds.
“_Sunday, May 23, 1819._--These twenty-four hours begins with fresh
breezes at east and clear, latter part light breezes and clear.
“_Monday, May 24, 1819._--These twenty-four hours begins with light
breezes and clear at 5 A.M. got under way off Tybee Light and put
to sea with steam and sails, at 6 A.M. left the pilot, at 8 A.M.
took off the wheels in twenty minutes, middle part pleasant. Course
E.N.E., wind S.S.E., the ship going 6.7.8. to 9 knots, and without
her wheels.
“_Tuesday, May 25, 1819._--These twenty-four hours begins with light
breezes and pleasant, all sail set to the best advantage at 12 A.M.
Tybee Light bore W. 6 S. 8 leagues distant from which I take my
departure.”
[Illustration: THE “SAVANNAH.”]
The ship continued under canvas until May 30, when at 8 A.M. steam
was got up for ten hours. And on June 18 the captain entered: “4 P.M.
Cork bore W. 6 S. 5 leagues distant. At 2 A.M. calm, no cole to git up
steam.”
A later entry on _Sunday, June 20, 1819_, reads: “5 P.M. shipped the
wheels, frld. the sails, and running to the River Mercer at 6 P.M. came
to anchor off Liverpool with the small bower anchor.”
The voyage was not without its humorous side. The sailing master,
Rogers, communicated to the New London (Connecticut) _Gazette_ an
account of their experiences. The Cape Clear telegraph station had
reported a ship on fire, and the Admiral at Cork despatched a cutter to
her relief.
“Great was their wonder at their inability,” says the paper, “with all
sail in a fast vessel, to come up with a ship under bare poles. After
several shots were fired from the cutter the engine was stopped, and
the surprise of her crew at the mistake they had made, as well as their
curiosity to see the singular Yankee craft, can be easily imagined.
They asked permission to go on board and were much gratified by the
inspection of this naval novelty. On approaching Liverpool hundreds of
people came off in boats to see her. She was compelled to lay outside
the bar till the tide should serve for her to go in. During this time
she had her colours all flying, when a boat from a British sloop of
war came alongside and hailed. The sailing master was on deck at the
time and answered. The officer of the boat asked him--‘Where is your
master?’ to which he gave the laconic reply, ‘I have no master, sir.’
‘Where’s your captain, then?’ ‘He’s below; do you wish to see him?’ ‘I
do, sir.’ The captain, who was then below, on being called, asked what
he wanted, to which he answered--‘Why do you wear that pennant, sir?’
‘Because my country allows me to, sir.’ ‘My commander thinks it was
done to insult him, and if you don’t take it down he will send a force
that will do it.’ Captain Rogers then exclaimed to the engineer--‘Get
the hot-water engine ready.’ There was no such machine on board, but
the order had the required effect and the boat sheered off.”
From Liverpool the _Savannah_ sailed for St. Petersburg, calling at
Elsinore and Stockholm. This voyage lasted thirty-three days, on ten
of which the vessel was under steam; and twice the machinery was run
for a spell of fifty-two hours. Eighteen hours was her longest spell
while crossing the Atlantic. The homeward voyage was made in the stormy
months of October and November. The paddles were unshipped throughout
that voyage and were not again used until November 30, when she arrived
at Savannah, the ocean journey having been made under sail only. The
cost of purchasing and fitting out the _Savannah_ for this experimental
voyage was £10,000. In December she returned to New York, her machinery
was removed, and she was then used as a sailer between New York and
Savannah until 1822, when she left her bones on the shores of Long
Island.
One of the earliest steamers to cross the Atlantic in a west-bound
direction was a little vessel called the _Rising Star_.[46] It was
decided in 1818 that she should be built, but it was not until 1820
that her construction was begun. It has even been disputed that
this vessel made the voyage at all, and many of the principal books
of reference do not mention her; nevertheless, it appears to be
indisputable that she existed, that she made the voyage to Chili, and
that she had an eventful career which lasted several years, and was
finally wrecked; and that the circumstances under which she left this
country for Chili in connection with the Chilian revolution in favour
of independence, and the events subsequent to her arrival as far as
paying for the steamer is concerned, reflect as little credit upon
the Chilian Government as upon that of Great Britain. Early in the
last century the relations between Chili and Spain became strained to
breaking-point. The Chilian people determined to free themselves from
the yoke of Spain and to establish a republic. Whatever may be the case
now, there is little question that one of the characteristics of all
the South American States at that time and for many years afterwards
was an extraordinary ingratitude towards those who had in any way
helped them. The history of that revolution and of the prominent part
which Lord Cochrane played in bringing it to a successful issue are too
well known to need recapitulation, but a short reference to it is not
out of place in considering the circumstances under which the _Rising
Star_ was sent on her journey.
[46] The “Dictionary of Dates” and the American “Universal Gazetteer”
give the name of the vessel as the _Rising Sun_, but this would
appear, from Lord Dundonald’s papers, to be incorrect.
In a recent letter to the writer Lord Dundonald says: “In 1817, when my
grandfather, the tenth Earl of Dundonald, was engaged by the Chilian
Government to create and take command of the Chilian Navy, he made a
stipulation that a steamboat should at once be constructed and sent
out to Chili to take part in the war, his opinion being that the great
disparity in numbers between the Chilian Navy and the Spanish Navy in
the Pacific would be neutralised by the advantage obtained in utilising
a steam vessel for purposes of war. The vessel was constructed on the
Thames at Rotherhithe, and my grandfather had anticipated going out in
her, but as she took longer in construction than was expected, he went
out with his wife and two children in the _Rose_ merchantman of 300
tons.
“It appears that the _Rising Star_ was taken out by my great-uncle,
Major the Hon. William Cochrane, but apparently she arrived in Chili
when my grandfather had practically swept the seas of the Spanish
fleet; a revolution had just taken place on her arrival and there was
no money available to pay for the _Rising Star_. The history of the
claim made against the Chilian Government by Major the Hon. William
Cochrane of course need not be gone into except in a word or two; as
you will understand, Chili was at that time a prey to revolution and
a poor country with little money and little credit; she repudiated
obligations at that time and would be much ashamed of her action now.”
Don José Alvarez, the Chilian agent, in a communication to Lord
Cochrane, had called attention to the “unfortunate delay,” and urged
him to embark immediately with his family in the ship _Rose_ to
proceed to Chili. The agent’s letter contained “the assurance that I
will attend to the affairs of the _Rising Star_, and take care that
everything is done to her.”
The memorial of the Hon. William Erskine Cochrane to the President of
the Chilian Republic many years later, in reciting the circumstance,
states that Mr. Edward Ellice, then an eminent English merchant and
a well-wisher to the independence of Chili, undertook the completion
and equipment of the _Rising Star_, but after having expended £8000
and the machinery being found defective, he declined making any
further advance, and being unable to obtain repayment of the sum he
had expended or the funds requisite for the necessary alterations and
equipment he advertised the vessel for sale. Don Alvarez then wrote to
Lord Cochrane on April 18, 1820, announcing Messrs. Ellice and Co.’s
intentions and solicited his assistance and added: “I shall, on the
part of the Government of Chili, agree to the following terms: The
ship, engines and stores to be sold or made over to any one of your
nomination for £6000; by that person and at his expense, the engines
must be altered in the following manner, viz., the pipes which convey
the steam from the boilers to be removed and larger ones provided.
Alterations to be made in the condensers. The paddle-blades to be
altered. The smoke apparatus to be completed and fitted, and the
effect of the engines tried. The ship must then undergo any necessary
repairs in her hull and rigging, when she must be manned, victualled,
insured, and conveyed to Chili at the expence of the purchaser; boats
and pumps of which she is now deficient must also be provided. The
amount of these various items, together with the interest of money
and profit, to be calculated at nine thousand pounds, so that on the
arrival of the vessel at Chili she will be purchased by Government at
fifteen thousand pounds.[47] In addition to which the licences formerly
granted to Messrs. Ellice for the importation of goods to the amount of
40,000 dollars[48] of duties shall be made over and transferred to the
person who undertakes this matter, and all property conveyed out in the
_Rising Star_ shall be admitted into Chili free of duties.”[49]
[47] This includes the £6000 paid for the ship.
[48] These were originally granted as a bonus.
[49] No goods were taken out in the ship.
The _Rising Star_ was completed, and arrived at Valparaiso in April
1822. But Lord Cochrane’s work was practically over and she was
therefore not required for the purpose originally intended of enabling
the Chilians to cope with the Spanish Navy. In June 1823 there was a
sudden change of government in Chili, and the O’Higgins Cabinet was
overthrown. The change was accompanied by the restless outbreaks which
have often marked political differences in the South American States,
and a good many of the papers relating to the building of the _Rising
Star_ and sending her to Chili were destroyed.
The new Chilian Government, being very short of money, took advantage
of the destruction of the papers and repudiated the obligation to Lord
Cochrane. It would take too much space to go into the details of this
lamentable affair, but it is sufficient to say that the vessel was
sold, that the Cochrane interest in her vanished, and the Hon. Wm. E.
Cochrane was called on for payment of a considerable additional sum
solely in consequence of the vexatious delay of the Chilian Government
in saying whether they would or would not fulfil their engagement.
[Illustration: THE “RISING STAR.”]
From a journal kept by Major W. E. Cochrane it appears that on May 31,
1820, he made his first payment of £50 on account of the vessel to Mr.
Kier, engineer. He seems to have visited very frequently the yard at
Deptford where the vessel was built, sometimes with the Chilian agent,
and payments on account of construction of £50 or so are frequent.
By the 14th of the following September the engines were sufficiently
advanced to undergo a trial, with what result is not stated. On October
6, he paid Mr. Ellice £2000 on account of the price of the ship. On the
17th he paid her another visit, when the engines were tried, and on the
18th he went again and tried the open paddles. Extensive alterations
to the engines were necessary, for on November 11 there appears the
item that he paid the balance of Kier’s account for that work, £163
4_s._ 11_d._ On January 30, 1821, he went and took dimensions for the
smoke-burning apparatus.
The _Rising Star_ left the dock on February 5, when the engineers
received £1 for working on Sunday. On the 7th, the wheels were tried
and one of them broke, and on the 8th he ordered the wheels to be
brought to town. On the 16th, a payment was made of £79 19_s._ “for the
deeds relating to the purchasing of the _Rising Star_.” On the 21st,
he paid a bricklayer for constructing the smoke-burning apparatus in
the flues of the boilers. Presumably the repairs were effected after
the ship had been returned to dock, for on February 22 she was taken
out of dock again. On March 20, the name of Captain Scott, as master,
first appears. On the 24th, Major Cochrane “went to the ship and got
the balance wheels fixed,” and on the 26th “tried the wheels, which did
not propel.” The weights were taken off the paddles on the following
day and reversed, and another trial was made of which the result is not
stated, and there was yet another trial on the 11th of the following
month. In April he paid to Mr. Brent, the builder, for docking the
_Rising Star_, £120 15_s._ 3_d._ On May 9 he ordered “my new vertical
paddles,” which were erected on the 29th. On this date there is a
curious entry: “Steward and boat 6_s._ 6_d._,” which is probably the
first recorded instance of a ship’s steward receiving a tip. The wheels
were tried while the vessel was in dock on June 8, and were found to
act well, and Don José Alvarez visited her the next day.
On the 11th of that month the first real trial of the ship took place,
for the entry reads: “Tried the ship with my vertical paddles. She went
from 5 to 6 knots, (standard broke).” A new standard was ordered and
on July 5, “tried my new paddles, went 20 miles at the rate of 5³⁄₄
knots an hour.” On the 18th of that month he paid Brent’s bill for
alterations and repairs, £193 3_s._ 8_d._ On September 4 the ship was
taken five miles down the river, and on the 11th he “ordered her into
dock to have her paddle-case closed (on account of insurance).” The
paddle-cases were fitted on the 13th, and on October 17 she went down
to Gravesend. Then comes a series of entries which are interesting as
showing the rates of pay at the time.
They are as follows, and are dated October 18:
Paid one month’s wages to Captain Scott £10 0 0
Paid William Ford, Carpenter, for the voyage 13 10 0
Mr. Cook, Mate, one month’s voyage[50] 4 0 0
To Cluly, 2nd Mate, one month’s wages 3 0 0
To Leach, Steward 6 0 0
Wages of Seamen 20 6 6
[50] Wages is probably meant.
The _Rising Star_ sailed from Gravesend on October 22, 1821. Numerous
heavy bills came in shortly afterwards, among which are “Insurance on
ship £800,” and Mr. Brown’s account, in which is included the heavy
expenses at Cork, when the ship put in there in distress, having sprung
a leak off the coast of Portugal, £913 9_s._ 1¹⁄₂_d._
Altogether the actual outlay in cash amounted to £13,295 4_s._ 4¹⁄₂_d._
The sum agreed upon in the arrangement with Don Alvarez was £15,000, to
which was added the interest to the year in which the claim was made
thirty-four years later, bringing the total amount of the claim of the
Cochrane family on account of this little steamer to £40,500.
Mr. W. Jackson went to Chili to join Lord Cochrane as secretary, and
remained with him in that capacity until his lordship’s return to
England. Mr. Jackson wrote on June 20, 1856, from Melton Mowbray: “I
sailed in her [the _Rising Star_] to Valparaiso, having been appointed
joint agent with Mr. Barnard, already at that place, for her transfer
to the Chilian Government. She arrived there in April 1822 in excellent
condition, having proved herself a very superior sea-boat, frequently
going twelve knots an hour. She was then tendered to the Government on
the terms of the contract, but they first claimed her in virtue of a
partial advance they had made for the building of the hull, and failing
to obtain possession on that ground they repudiated the contract with
Alvarez altogether, without assigning any valid reason for so doing.
The sum agreed to be paid on her delivery was £15,000, no part of which
was there received.”
Unfortunately, little is known as to the nature of her machinery or
means of propulsion. An illustration of the _Rising Star_, published
in 1821, represents her as a full-rigged ship and carrying two funnels
placed abreast and situated between the main and fore masts; but she
seems to have neither paddle-boxes nor uncovered paddle-wheels. The
description attached to the picture states that the _Rising Star_ was
“built under the direction of Lord Cochrane upon the principle of
navigating either by sails or by steam, the propelling apparatus being
placed in the hold and caused to operate through apertures in the
bottom of the vessel.”
From this it may be conjectured either that the paddles were discarded
or that she was also fitted with some modification of the jet system.
Although no further attempt was made to send a steamer across the
Atlantic for many years, the project was not lost sight of, and schemes
innumerable were formed and abandoned. Ten years after the _Savannah’s_
voyage some Dutch merchants purchased the _Curaçoa_, a Clyde-built
vessel of 320 tons, and despatched her to the West Indies from Antwerp.
Her engines were of 100 horse-power, and consumed slightly over seven
pounds of coal per indicated horse-power per hour, but there is no
record of her having attempted to make the voyage under steam.
The first steamer to cross the Atlantic from west to east depending
largely though not entirely on her own steam was the _Royal William_,
built by James Goudie for the Quebec and Halifax Steam Navigation
Company at Quebec, in the shipyard of Black and Saxton Campbell, upon
the lines of an early Clyde steamer, the _United Kingdom_, built by
Steele of Greenock in 1826 for the London and Leith service. She was
176 feet long, and 146 feet between perpendiculars. Her beam was 27
feet, and outside the paddle-boxes 43 feet 10 inches, and her depth
17 feet 9 inches. Her tonnage is variously given as 830 gross[51] and
1370 B.M.[52] She had side-lever engines of 180 horse-power[53] or 200
horse-power,[54] by Boulton and Watt. She was engined at St. Mary’s
foundry, Montreal. Her launch took place on April 29, 1831, and after
trading for a time between Quebec and Nova Scotian ports she was sold
to another company, which ultimately tried the experiment of sending
her across the Atlantic. Mr. Samuel Cunard was one of the directors
of this company, but there is nothing to show that he assisted in the
promotion of the scheme to send her over the ocean.[55] Nevertheless
it is a fact that “the idea of starting a line of steamers to connect
the two countries had occurred to his mind as early as 1830.”[56] On
August 4, 1833, the _Royal William_ sailed from Quebec, coaled at
Pictou, and began her journey. She is said to have steamed the greater
part of the way, some writers say the whole of it, and arrived at
Gravesend on September 11 after calling at Cowes. Probably owing to
there being another vessel of the same name a few years later, some
misconception has arisen as to her performance, for as a matter of
fact, the first _Royal William_ did not steam all the way, but made
a considerable portion of the voyage under sail alone. It is to the
credit of Canadians, however, that this steamer was despatched, and it
is upon this particular enterprise that the claim of the Canadians to
have made the first steam-ship voyage across the Atlantic is founded.
The subsequent history of this vessel is interesting. She stayed in
the Port of London for a few weeks, after which she was chartered
by the Portuguese, and while in their service her speed attracted
the attention of the Spanish Government. The Spaniards purchased her
towards the end of 1833 at the time of the first Carlist rebellion and
changed her name to the _Ysabel Secunda_. It was shortly after this
that she obtained the doubtful honour of being the first steamer to
fire a gun in war, the Spaniards having armed her with six cannon. Her
eventful career ended when she went to pieces on the Santander rocks.
[51] “The Atlantic Ferry.”
[52] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
[53] _Ibid._
[54] “The Atlantic Ferry.”
[55] _Ibid._
[56] “History of the Cunard Company.”
[Illustration: THE “DIEPPE” (L.B. & S.C.R.).]
[Illustration: THE “UNITED KINGDOM.”]
These two voyages stand in a class by themselves, and both mark a
distinct step forward in the progress of the modern mercantile marine.
The earliest steamboats, whether European, British, or American, were
smooth-water vessels only, and were admitted to be of an elementary and
experimental character. The _Charlotte Dundas_ and _Comet_ in Scotland
and the _Clermont_ and _Phœnix_ in America were much beyond anything
that had preceded them, and were significant as indicating a perception
of the possibility of extending the activity of steam-propelled boats
from the placid waters of canals or rivers to the greater waters
of harbours, ports, and estuaries. The four vessels first named
demonstrated, each in her own way, that it was necessary to build the
hull to suit the engine, instead of acquiring a hull and putting an
engine into it and trusting to luck. The _Phœnix_ showed in 1807 that
a vessel constructed to carry a steam-engine of a suitable size could
be trusted on the open sea, by steaming from New York to the Delaware.
A few years later, the Clyde shipbuilders showed that they could
construct steamers which should go down the Clyde estuary and even
essay the journey to Ireland.
It is true they used sails whenever possible, but when winds or tides
were against them the engines alone were depended on. Vessels with
two and three masts were employed, and as marine engines were made
of greater size, power, and weight, vessels of greater dimensions
were equipped with them, and the coastal service was inaugurated. By
this time the engine had become a powerful auxiliary to sail on short
voyages for which large bunker space was not required. The maintenance
of the coastal voyages in all weathers proved the thorough seagoing
qualities of the steamers. In estimating the value of the _Savannah’s_
voyage and its place in the history of steam navigation, it must not
be forgotten that she was a sailing vessel, was built to be one, that
the form of her hull was not altered in any way when she was engined,
and that on her return, when her machinery was taken out of her,
she resumed her place in her country’s trade as a sailer. Quebec’s
_Royal William_, on the contrary, was designed and built to be a steam
auxiliary vessel, and it was not until she had established herself in
that capacity that her voyage to the Mother Country was decided upon.
The performances of these two ships were thus of great importance; they
demonstrated, in the case of the _Savannah_, that a little sailing ship
could carry a small auxiliary engine which might help her in and out of
port, and at other times if it were necessary and fuel permitted; and
in the case of the _Royal William_ that a steam packet could essay an
ocean voyage and depend both upon her sails and steam-engines to enable
her to reach her destination in good time.
No further attempts were made, however, until 1838, which was destined
to become a memorable year.
Before this, various companies had been proposing to build steamers,
but nothing had been done. In 1828 an Act of Parliament was obtained
for the incorporation of the Valentia Transatlantic Steam Navigation
Company, which was to run a line of steamers from the west coast of
Ireland to America. The company proposed to build a steamer at a cost
of £21,000. She was to carry fifty cabin passengers and as many in
the steerage, and 200 tons of cargo in her hold. It was suggested
that she should be of about 800 tons displacement, with engines of
200 horse-power, and her speed was to be such that she could make six
voyages each way in twelve months. The company announced in 1828 that
it would commence operations immediately, but the public held aloof,
and seven years later matters were no further advanced.
Then the project was revived, and considerable interest was taken
in it because it was suggested that the enterprise should be worked
in connection with the new railway from London, the new Post Office
packets and the Valentia Railway.
It was at this time that Dr. Lardner, a man of recognised scientific
attainments, made his remarkable assertion regarding the impossibility
of establishing steam navigation between New York and Liverpool.
According to a report of a meeting at which Dr. Lardner was present,
that gentleman pointed out that “the only difficulty would be as to the
run from Valentia to St. John’s.” He continued: “As a last resource,
however, should the distance between Valentia and St. John’s prove too
great they might make the Azores a stage between, so there remained
no doubt of the practicability of establishing a steam intercourse
with the United States. As to the project of making a voyage directly
from New York to Liverpool, it was, he had no hesitation in saying,
perfectly chimerical, and they might as well talk of making a voyage
from New York or Liverpool to the moon.”[57]
[57] Liverpool _Albion_, December 14, 1835.
While England was listening to the depressing remarks of Dr. Lardner,
America was at work.
In 1835 Junius Smith[58] from Massachusetts began to consider the
navigation of the ocean by steamers, and in 1836 he proposed to form
the British and American Steam Navigation Company. The company was
actually established in 1837 by Mr. Macgregor Laird with a capital
of £1,000,000, but Smith’s connection with the scheme ceased, as he
saw himself unlikely to make as much out of the enterprise as he had
anticipated.
[58] The name is given as “Junius Smith” in Appleton’s “Cyclopædia of
National Biography.”
Mr. Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation,” however, states that
Doctor Julius Smith organised in 1836 “a transatlantic steam-ship
company bearing the title of the ‘British Queen Steam Navigation
Company,’ with a capital of £1,000,000, and Mr. Macgregor Laird as
secretary.” The most remarkable event in the annals of this company
is the voyage of the Sirius from London to New York in 1838. “The
_Sirius_! The _Sirius_! The _Sirius_! Nothing is talked of in New York
but about the _Sirius_. She is the first steam vessel that has arrived
here from England, and a glorious boat she is.... Lieutenant Roberts,
R.N., Commander, is the first man that has navigated a steam-ship from
Europe to America.”[59] The _Sirius_ was sent across the Atlantic
really as a desperate remedy against competition.
[59] New York _Weekly Herald_.
The Transatlantic Company had placed a contract as early as 1836 with
Messrs. Curling and Young of Blackwall, London, for the construction of
the _British Queen_ steam-ship, but the bankruptcy of Messrs. Claude
Girdwood and Co. of Glasgow, who had contracted to build the engines,
caused considerable delay. Enterprising rivals at Bristol, seizing the
opportunity, formed the Great Western Steamship Company to build and
equip the _Great Western_, which they determined to put on the service
before the _British Queen_ could be got ready. In this they were
successful, and to save the honour of their own company the _British
Queen_ directors hired the _Sirius_ from the Cork Steamship Company.
It was known at the time that she was too small to be employed as a
regular transoceanic trader, and even before she started on her first
voyage the announcement was made that she would make two voyages only.
She was 178 feet long, 25¹⁄₂ feet broad, 18¹⁄₄ feet deep, and of
703 tons register. Her engines, like those of all other vessels
of her time, were of the side-lever type; their cylinders were of
60 inches diameter, and had a stroke of 6 feet, and she carried a
surface condenser similar to those now in use. She was a two-masted
vessel, carrying three square sails on the foremast, her aftermast
being fore-and-aft rigged only. She had one funnel situated abaft the
paddle-boxes, which were about amidships. A picture of the vessel is in
existence which represents her as three-masted, and with her paddles
rather far forward, but this is inaccurate. She was almost a new ship
at this time, and it is not likely that a mast would have been taken
out of her between her launch and her Atlantic voyage. Her schooner
bows bore as figurehead a dog with a star between his front paws.
The _Sirius_ left London, sailing from East Lane Stairs, on March
28. She took no goods, as she was intended to be a passenger steamer
only. On going down the river she overtook the _Great Western_ “with
a respectable pleasure party on board,” and a trial of speed was the
consequence. When the _Sirius_ had reached Gravesend she was upwards
of a mile ahead of her rival. She had made the distance from Greenwich
to Gravesend against a strong tide in one hour and fifty-six minutes.
Both ships had their colours hoisted, and the banks of the river were
thronged with spectators. Soon after the departure of the _Sirius_
the American Line packet-ship _Quebec_ came down the river in tow,
and wagers were freely laid that the _Quebec_ would arrive before the
_Sirius_ at New York. But those who backed the _Quebec_ lost their
money.
The _Ocean_, a vessel belonging to the Irish Company, acted as tender
to the _Sirius_ when the latter called at Cork, and arrived there from
Liverpool on April 3, with mails and passengers for the venturesome
little craft. At a few minutes after ten o’clock on the morning of the
4th, the _Sirius_ proceeded on her voyage. The day was beautifully
fine, every vessel in the harbour was decked with flags in honour of
the event, a salute was fired from the battery on shore, and every
boat which could be pressed into service was crowded with enthusiastic
sightseers when, accompanied by the _Ocean_, the vessel left the
harbour. The _Ocean_ went with her as far as the entrance to the bay.
The _Watt_, which arrived at Liverpool on April 8, reported having
sighted on April 5, in latitude 51° N. and longitude 12° W., the
_Sirius_ bound for New York, bravely encountering a westerly gale.
“When it is considered,” the Liverpool _Standard_ of the day naively
remarked, “that this is the first steam vessel to cross the Atlantic,
this information may not be altogether unimportant.”
New York was reached at ten o’clock in the evening of April 22,
not without some adventure. Lieutenant Roberts, her commander, was
determined to carry the voyage through, but it was only “thanks to
stern discipline and the persuasive arguments of loaded firearms”
that he brought the crew round to his way of thinking, as they became
somewhat demoralised by continuous head-winds and declared that it was
utter madness to proceed in so small a vessel. There were 94 passengers
on board, of whom 30 were in the state-cabin, 29 in the fore-cabin, and
35 were steerage passengers.[60]
[60] It has been said the _Sirius_ carried no passengers. According
to _Notes and Queries_, the New York _Herald_, of April 28, 1838, in
reporting the arrival of the _Sirius_, says that forty-two passengers
were on board, of whom eleven were females, for whose accommodation a
stewardess was carried. A contributor to _Notes and Queries_ quotes
the authority of the Registrar-General of Shipping and Seamen for the
statement that the stewards’ department consisted of three stewards,
one assistant, two cooks, and a boy, and he asks whether this staff
would have been required in an ordinary boat of 412 tons if there
were no passengers.
[Illustration: THE “SIRIUS,” FROM A PRINT OF 1837.]
The passage occupied sixteen and a half days, and the average speed
was 8¹⁄₂ knots per hour; about twenty-four tons of coal per day being
consumed. Her arrival at New York was hailed with delirious enthusiasm,
and the excitement was yet further intensified when it became known
on the morning of the 23rd, only a few hours after the _Sirius_ had
anchored off the Battery, that another steam-ship was sighted making
its way to the port, and that the approaching vessel was greater than
any steam-ship ever seen in American waters.
This was the _Great Western_, and New York celebrated the double
arrival with that strenuous abandon attainable only in the Empire City.
The _Great Western_ was built at Bristol by Patterson. She was brought
round to London and left London again for the western port on March
31. Off Southend she was discovered to be on fire, and the heat and
smoke were so great that all the engine-room staff had to take refuge
on deck. Fortunately they had forgotten to stop her engines, and the
vessel was beached on the Chapman Sands, her decks were cut into,
and volumes of water were poured upon the flames. The fire was soon
extinguished, and the damage was found to be much less than was feared.
She floated on the tide and resumed her voyage under her own steam to
Bristol. The fire was due to the ignition of the felt packing round
the boilers. Owing to this adventure the _Great Western_ did not
sail from Bristol for New York quite as early as was expected, and it
was this delay which enabled the _Sirius_ to gain pride of place. The
_Great Western_ left for New York three days after the departure of
the _Sirius_ from Cork. Her average speed to New York was 208 knots
per day, and she used 655 tons of coal on the voyage. Another account,
published in 1840, says that of her 660 tons of coal only 452 were used
when she reached New York. On her homeward voyage her speed was nearly
9 knots an hour as against the 8·2 knots outward, but she burnt only
392 tons of coal, the difference being accounted for by the fact that
on the outward voyage she experienced very rough weather. Although
she made a much faster passage than her little rival, it is but fair
to remember that she was nearly twice her size, and with engines
developing more than twice the horse-power.
A contemporary writer thus describes the _Great Western_: “The
officers, crew, and engineers are about sixty in number. The saloon is
75 feet long, 21 feet broad, exclusive of recesses on each side, where
the breadth is 34 feet and the height 9 feet. The decorations are in
the highest degree tasteful and elegant, and the apartment may vie
with those of the club-houses of London in luxury and magnificence.
The splendour of a saloon is, however, a matter of very inferior
consequence, and it is higher praise to state that the more essential
parts of the vessel and all her machinery are examples of mechanical
skill and ingenuity which cannot be surpassed.”
[Illustration: THE “GREAT WESTERN.” FROM A PRINT OF 1837.]
The saloon was decorated with about fifty panels, the larger ones,
according to a contemporary description, representing “rural
scenery, agriculture, music, the arts and sciences, interior views
and landscapes, and parties grouped, or engaged in elegant sports
and amusements; the smaller panels contained beautifully pencilled
paintings of Cupid, Psyche, and other aerial figures.”[61] Every
berth and cabin had a bell communicating with the stewards’ room, the
method of communication being described as follows for the instruction
of travellers: “When the attendance of the steward is required, the
passenger pulls the bell-rope in his berth, which rings the bell in the
small box (in the stewards’ room) and at the same time by means of a
small lever forces up through a slit in the lid a small tin label with
the number of the room painted requiring the services of the steward,
and there remains, until the steward has ascertained the number of the
room and pushed it down again. Thus, instead of an interminable number
of bells there are only two. This arrangement, which is alike ingenious
as it is useful, is deserving the notice of architects.”[62]
[61] _The Mirror._
[62] _Civil Engineer and Architect’s Journal._
From the same publication it appears that the floors are of great
length and overrun each other. “They are firmly dowelled and bolted,
first in pairs and then together by means of 1¹⁄₂-inch bolts about 24
feet in length, driven in four parallel rows. The scantling is equal
in size to that of our line-of-battle ships; it is filled in solid
and was caulked within and without up to the first futtock heads
previously to planking, and all to above this height of English oak.
She is most closely and firmly trussed with iron and wooden diagonals
and shelf-pieces, which with the whole of her upper works are fastened
with screws and nuts to a much greater extent than has hitherto been
put in practice. Her engines are the largest marine engines yet
made. The boilers are constructed with several adaptations for the
economy of steam and fuel on an entirely new principle. There are four
distinct and independent boilers, any number of which can be worked
as circumstances require. The wheels have the cycloidal paddles. The
figure-head is a demi-figure of Neptune with gilded trident, and on
each side are dolphins in imitation bronze.”
The _Sirius_ made two transatlantic voyages as advertised, and was
utilised henceforward for the trade for which she was built, namely,
carrying passengers and goods between ports on the coast. She traded
chiefly between Liverpool, Cork, Glasgow, and London, and occasionally
to St. Petersburg, and at last, in June 1847, she was wrecked in
Ballycotten Bay.
While the _Sirius_ and _Great Western_ had been monopolising the
attention of the public, the directors of the City of Dublin Steam
Packet Company, who had already formed a company to join in the
transatlantic traffic, determined upon making their start with the
new paddle-steamer _Royal William_. This was not the Canadian _Royal
William_, but a boat built in 1836 by Wilson of Liverpool, with engines
by Fawcett and Preston, and one of a quartet intended to compete with
the Government steamers carrying the mails between Liverpool and
Kingstown. She was a faster vessel than any of the Government boats.
One voyage, in which she created a record which stood for some time,
was when she was engaged between London and Dublin, and did the 260
miles run from Falmouth to Kingstown in 23 hours. She was slightly
shorter than the _Sirius_, but her capacity was 817 tons gross, and
her engines of 276 horse-power. Although she had accommodation for
eighty passengers, she had on board only thirty-two when she started
from Liverpool on Thursday, July 5, 1838. She carried no cargo, all the
space apparently being used for fuel.
“Coal filled her bunkers, her holds, and even her well-deck, so that
her paddles were buried six feet, her sponsons were submerged, and
it was possible, by leaning over the bulwarks, to wash one’s hands
in the water that surged at the vessel’s sides.”[63] Her departure
from Liverpool was celebrated in a manner befitting the occasion; the
spectators gathered by thousands, and every cannon on either side of
the river that could be used to fire a salute was requisitioned, while
the steamers and large sailing ships anchored in the river, many of
which carried guns, joined in the salute. The outward voyage lasted
nineteen days, but she did the passage back in fourteen and a half days.
[63] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
While she was being got ready, the directors accepted an offer from
Sir John Tobin to run a steamer, which was built for him, alternately
with the _Royal William_. She was named the _Liverpool_, and was of
1150 tons, carrying engines of 404 horse-power. She sailed on October
20, 1838, and had got about one-third of the way across the Atlantic
when it was found necessary to turn back on account of bad weather. She
accordingly took refuge at Cork. A stay of ten days was made there, and
she eventually arrived at New York on November 23.
The _British Queen_, as befitted her name, was launched on the Queen’s
birthday in 1838, and made her first voyage from London to New York in
July 1839. She was commanded by Lieutenant Roberts, formerly of the
_Sirius_, and was at that time the largest and fastest steam vessel
afloat; and with Roberts in charge, it is not to be wondered at that
she did some good work. Lieutenant Roberts, writing to a friend from
New York, says in the course of a letter dated June 1, 1840: “I can
only state there is not a faster seagoing vessel in the World, and time
will tell. We have beat the _Great Western_ every voyage this year and
[word illegible] last year; therefore whoever gave you the idea of our
Speed and Power were perfectly ignorant of Steam and Steam Vessels. I
have made the passage from Portsmouth to New York shorter than ever
performed, only 13 d. 11 h. from Pilot to Pilot. Let _Great Western_
do that if she can, though she has ten hours’ shorter distance to run.
I sail at 1 P.M. this day with full cargo and every berth taken, and
sincerely do I wish to make a short passage.” He adds: “I intend trying
for some shore berth ... but will not leave till I command the first
iron vessel to steam across the Atlantic.” This was not to be, however,
for he was in command of the _President_ when that ill-fated vessel
left New York with one hundred and thirty-six passengers on March 12,
1841. No trace of her has been found from that day to this.
[Illustration: THE “PRESIDENT.”]
The _President_ was launched on December 7, 1839, on the Thames by the
same builders, Messrs. Curling and Young. She was almost a sister ship
to the _British Queen_, as far as appearance and general equipment
went, but the engines of the second vessel were slightly more powerful.
[Illustration: THE “BRITISH QUEEN.” FROM AN ORIGINAL PAINTING IN THE
POSSESSION OF THE AUTHOR.]
The following comparative table, showing the dimensions of these
vessels, was published in 1840:
+-----------------------------------+---------+--------+------------+
| | _Great |_British| |
| DIMENSIONS. |Western._|Queen._ |_President._|
+-----------------------------------+---------+--------+------------+
|Extreme length (feet) | 236 | 275 | 265 |
|Extreme length under deck (feet) | 212 | 245 | 238 |
|Extreme length keel (feet) | 205 | 225 | 220 |
|Breadth within the paddle-boxes | | | |
|(feet) | 35·4 in.| 40 | 41 |
|Breadth, including paddle-boxes | | | |
|(feet) | 59·8 in.| 64 | 64 |
|Depth of hold at midships (feet) | 23·2 in.|27·6 in.| 23·6 in. |
|Tons of space | 679¹⁄₂ | 1053 | -- |
|Tonnage of engine-room (feet) | 641¹⁄₂ | 963 | -- |
|Total tonnage (tons) | 1321 | 2016 | 1840 |
|Power of engines (horses) | 450 | 500 | 540 |
|Diameter of cylinders (inches) | 73 | 77¹⁄₂ | 80 |
|Length of stroke (feet) | 7 | 7 | 7¹⁄₂ |
|Diameter of paddle-wheels (feet) | 28·9 in.|30·6 in.| 31 |
|Total weight of engines, boilers, | | | |
|and water (tons) | 480 | 500 | 500 |
|Total weight of coals, twenty days’| | | |
|consumption (tons) | 600 | 750 | 750 |
|Total weight of cargo (tons) | 250 | 500 | 750 |
|Draught of water with the above | | | |
|weight of stores (feet) | 16·8 in.|16·7 in.| 17 |
+-----------------------------------+---------+--------+------------+
They were square-sterned vessels, barque-rigged, and carried a
long white funnel with a black top. The paddles were placed almost
amidships, with the funnel abaft the paddle-boxes. The _Great Western_
might be described as a four-masted barquentine. She had one funnel
carried between the fore and main masts, and the paddles were set abaft
the main-mast. All three vessels had engines of the side-lever type.
Those of the _British Queen_ were supplied by Napier from the Clyde,
and those of the _President_ by Fawcett and Preston of Liverpool. The
_Great Western’s_ engines were built by Maudslay, Son, and Field of
London.
The _President_ was built of oak with fir planking, her upper deck
being flush from bows to stern. The stern was ornamented with
the British and American arms, supported by the lion and eagle,
appropriately painted. And for a figure-head she had a bust of
Washington. The paddle-boxes were decorated with a five-point star.
The first attempt to float the _President_ was not a success owing to
the tide not being high enough. A second attempt the following day
also failed, but on the third day, Monday, December 9, 1839, she was
floated, and towed out of the dock and down to Blackwall, where she was
safely moored.
After the loss of the _President_ in 1841, the British and American
Steam Navigation Company sold the _British Queen_ to the Belgians
and retired from business altogether, leaving the _Great Western_
practically in sole possession of the Atlantic. But, as the next
chapter will show, this splendid isolation was not hers for long.
CHAPTER VI
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSATLANTIC SERVICE
The success which attended the voyages of the _Great Western_, and the
manifest superiority of that steam-ship over the brigs which were then
thought good enough to carry the mails across the Atlantic, induced
the Government in October 1838 to invite tenders for the conveyance
of the mails to America by steam vessels. Circulars were distributed
broadcast, and one of them reached Samuel Cunard, a merchant of
Halifax, Nova Scotia, who, as already stated, had entertained for
many years the idea that the mails might be conveyed across the
Atlantic more speedily than the “coffin brigs,” as the Government’s
vessels were contemptuously termed, could carry them. From the year
1830, Cunard had been actively endeavouring to forward his scheme,
but so little was thought of the powers of the steam-ship that the
local merchants condemned his ideas as visionary and refused their
co-operation. Accordingly he came to London but met with as little
sympathy and financial support there as at Halifax. Fortunately for
him and for the world, he was able to take a letter of introduction
from the Secretary of the East India Company to Mr. Robert Napier, at
that time the foremost steam-ship builder on the Clyde, and probably
in the world. Mr. Napier had just achieved a remarkable success in
the construction of one of the earlier Isle of Man boats, the _Mona’s
Isle_, and the experiences through which she passed in triumph in one
or two of her earliest voyages had greatly increased the fame of her
builder. Mr. Napier himself used to say that he was largely indebted
for his prosperity and reputation to the name made for him by the
_Mona’s Isle_. He introduced Cunard to John Burns of Glasgow, who was
already extensively engaged in the steamer coasting trade between
Scotland, England, and Ireland, and he in turn introduced Cunard to his
Liverpool partner, David MacIver. After hearing Cunard’s explanation
of his project, the partners decided to support it, and such was their
reputation for enterprise and for achieving success in everything
they undertook that, through their instrumentality, the whole of the
capital required, amounting to £270,000, was obtained. Backed up by
Burns and MacIver, and with the promised support of Napier, Cunard
was among those who tendered to the Admiralty for the conveyance of
the mails once a fortnight between Liverpool, Halifax, and Boston. A
tender was also offered by the Great Western Steamship Company, on
whose behalf it was urged that their _Great Western_ was already in
existence and was prepared to undertake the work at once, and that
the Cunard Company would either have to charter steamers or wait till
they could be built. But the Government accepted the Cunard tender and
a contract was signed for seven years, it being stipulated that four
suitable steamers should be employed instead of three as originally
required, and further, that the dates of arrival and departure should
be adhered to. In consideration of these more onerous conditions the
subsidy was increased from £60,000 to £81,000 per annum. The first four
vessels of the Cunard Line, or as it was then formally known, “The
British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company,” were
practically sister ships. There was little choice between them in size
or power of engines, nor was there much difference in their internal
arrangements. These vessels were built on the Clyde, the _Britannia_ by
R. Duncan, the _Arcadia_ by John Wood, the _Caledonia_ by C. Wood, and
the _Columbia_ by R. Steel. The orders were placed with four different
builders so that the steamers might be ready as soon as possible.
They were all launched in 1840, and all were fitted with the ordinary
side-lever engines by Robert Napier, who had brought this type of
engine to a high pitch of perfection. The _Britannia_ was 207 feet long
by 34 feet 4 inches broad, with a moulded depth of 24 feet 4 inches,
and had a tonnage of 1154; her engines indicated 740 horse-power and
gave her an average speed of 8¹⁄₂ knots on a coal consumption of 38
tons per day. Her cargo capacity was about 225 tons. Each of these
vessels was fitted to carry 115 cabin passengers but none in the
steerage. All were adapted for the transport of troops and stores in
time of war. The first steamer actually sent across the Atlantic for
the Cunard organisation was the _Unicorn_, which left Liverpool on May
16, 1840, for Halifax and Boston, and was then employed for several
years between Picton and Quebec, in connection with the liners, and
carried both mails and passengers. The first departure under the mail
contract, however, was on Friday, July 4, 1840. That a Friday should
be selected for the inauguration of the service, even though it was
“Independence Day” in America, was received with much shaking of the
head by those who clung to the sailors’ superstition concerning the
unlucky nature of Friday, but nothing untoward happened, and the choice
of “Independence Day” for the first departure of the new line was
hailed in America as a most graceful compliment. The voyage to Boston
lasted 14 days 8 hours. The mail service was continued with conspicuous
regularity for three years, when it was found that the traffic had
increased to such an extent that the four steamers were no longer
able to cope with it. Accordingly in 1843 the _Hibernia_ was added,
and in 1845 the _Cambria_, sister ships of 210 feet in length between
perpendiculars, 35 feet 9 inches beam, 24 feet 2 inches moulded depth,
1422 tons gross, and with engines of 1040 indicated horse-power, and an
average speed of 9¹⁄₄ knots.
In 1844 the _Britannia_, on arriving at Boston in February of that
year in a particularly severe winter, became ice-bound. When the day
came for her departure for Liverpool, the Bostonians showed their
appreciation of the line and of the regularity of communication it
maintained with England by cutting at their own expense a channel
seven miles long and a hundred feet wide through the ice to liberate
her, her sailing being only two days behind time. In 1847, even with
the two extra ships, the company was unable to cope with the demands
made upon it, and the commerce between the two countries had increased
to such an extent that the Government felt bound when the time came
for the renewal of the contract to require that the service should be
doubled. It was stipulated that the company should provide a vessel
of not less than 400 horse-power nominal and capable of carrying guns
of the largest calibre. Its steamers were to leave Liverpool, calling
at Holyhead if required, every Saturday for New York and Boston
alternately, the Boston steamer touching at Halifax, and the New York
one to do so also if required by the Admiralty. For these augmented
sailings the subsidy was raised to £173,340 per annum, at which figure
it remained to the end of 1867. This change necessitated the building
of four new ships, namely, the _Niagara_, _Canada_, _America_, and
_Europa_. They were 251 feet long between perpendiculars, 35 feet beam,
26 feet 3 inches moulded depth, and of 1825 tons gross register, and
had engines of 2000 indicated horse-power, which gave them an average
speed of 10¹⁄₄ knots. In 1850 the _Asia_ and _Africa_ were added to
the fleet; they were sister ships, 266 feet between perpendiculars, 40
feet beam, 27 feet 2 inches depth, and of 2226 gross tonnage, and had
engines of 2400 indicated horse-power, with an average speed of 12¹⁄₂
knots. In 1852 the _Arabia_ was built, 285 feet between perpendiculars,
8 inches more beam, with a depth of 29 feet, and a gross tonnage of
2402. Her engines developed 3250 horse-power and gave her an average
speed of 13 knots.
[Illustration: THE “BRITANNIA” (CUNARD, 1840).]
The building of the _Arabia_ marks the close of the first period in
the history of the Cunard Line for, in 1855, the company began to
build iron ships. She was intended to be a reply to the steamers of
the Collins Line. For some reason or other the Americans made very few
attempts to enter upon the transatlantic steam-ship trade until nearly
the middle of the nineteenth century. Probably they were satisfied with
the performances of their sailing clippers, as they had good reason
to be, for the clippers often made faster passages than the early
Cunarders. From 1838 to 1847 every Atlantic liner flew the British
flag, but in 1845 the United States Congress passed an Act authorising
contracts to be made with owners of American vessels, steamships
preferred, for the regular transportation of the United States mails.
As an American writer says:
“This Act of 1845 is all-significant as the beginning of American
steam-ship service in the foreign trade. Not until national protection
was offered in the form of generous subsidies could our enterprising
merchants and sailors see their way clear to enter into the rivalry
with the State-aided steam fleets of Europe. The mail subsidy
legislation of 1845 was a wise step and indispensable, but it was
too long delayed. Congress should have acted five years before, when
the first Cunarder, floated and maintained by a liberal subsidy from
Parliament, came across the ocean, beating the time of our celebrated
packet ships. Individual resource could never compete with the great
treasury of the British Empire.”[64]
[64] “The American Mercantile Marine,” by W. L. Marvin.
In 1847 the Americans made a determined effort to establish a
fortnightly service between New York and Bremen, calling at Southampton
or Cowes. This venture was known as the Ocean Steam Navigation Company,
and though it had a contract for carrying the American mails in return
for a subvention of 200,000 dollars, it ceased operations in little
more than a year. It had two wooden paddle-steamers, the _Washington_
and _Hermann_, built by Westervelt and Mackay for Mr. Edward Mills.
Both were barque-rigged and carried a great spread of canvas.
The _Washington_ was 236 feet in length, by 39 feet beam, 31 feet
depth, and of about 2000 tons gross. The _Hermann_ was slightly larger.
The _Washington_, on her first voyage eastward in June of that year,
was pitted against the _Britannia_, which the Americans expected to
beat easily, but though the American boat had twice the engine-power,
and the Cunarder was seven years old, the latter arrived two days ahead.
The New York and Havre Steam Navigation Company, another American
enterprise, was founded in 1848 to carry the mails between those ports
for a subsidy of 150,000 dollars per annum and to touch at Southampton.
Its first vessel was the wooden paddle-steamer _Franklin_, 263 feet
in length, of about 2184 tons, and 1250 indicated horse-power. She
sailed on her first voyage in 1850, and was joined in the service
by the _Humboldt_, a slightly larger vessel, in the following year.
In December 1853 the _Humboldt_ was wrecked near Halifax, and the
_Franklin_ went to pieces on Long Island in 1854. The company ordered
two other vessels, the _Arago_ and _Fulton_, which were launched in
June 1855 and February 1856 respectively. They were rather larger than
the _Humboldt_, but instead of lever engines had oscillating cylinder
engines, the cylinders being 65 inches diameter with a 10-foot stroke.
Until they were ready the company maintained the service, after the
loss of its earlier boats, with chartered vessels.
The New England Ocean Steamship Company, formed by Messrs. Harnden
and Co. of Boston, placed the iron screw-steamer _Lewis_ of 1105 tons
on the service between that port and Liverpool in October 1851, but
withdrew her the next year.
By 1850 there were no fewer than seven or eight lines of steamers
trading between New York and Liverpool. The Cunard Company had eight
of the finest steamers in the world, and the ninth, the _Africa_, was
expected shortly to arrive from the builders at Glasgow.
An agitation had been maintained for some years in America for a
subsidised American steam-ship service, which should surpass the
British line. The Government at last was prevailed upon to promise
financial support to a line of steamers under certain conditions,
and the necessary legislation was passed by Congress in March 1847.
The vessels were to be of the highest class, of great speed, and of
superior passenger accommodation, and so fitted that they could be
turned into war steamers at small expense. Mr. K. Edward Collins of New
York, owner of the well-known Dramatic Line of sailing ships, so called
because they were named after famous theatrical people, organised the
line and was well supported by American capitalists and influential
commercial men generally.
The Collins Line, as the organisation was called, undertook, by a
contract signed in November 1847, to provide a mail service between New
York and Liverpool, fortnightly in summer and monthly in winter, with
five first-class steam-ships, for which 19,250 dollars per trip for
twenty round trips, or 385,000 dollars a year, were to be paid, but as
the first four ships built for the line were very much larger, swifter,
and more expensive and more valuable to the nation[65] than the exact
terms of the contract required, the Government in 1852 increased the
subsidy to 858,000 dollars a year.
[65] Marvin’s “American Mercantile Marine.”
[Illustration: THE “ATLANTIC.”]
Money was spent upon the Collins liners like water, and everything
in every department was of a most costly and luxurious description.
Indeed, so lavish was the expenditure upon the Collins boats that
even had they not met with the series of disasters which afterwards
befell them, and had the line not been deprived by the United States
Government of its subsidy for carrying the mails, it is doubtful
whether it would ever have been a commercial success. Thus a
description of the _Atlantic_ says: “Her interior fittings are truly
elegant, the woodwork being of white holly, satin wood, rosewood,
&c., so combined and diversified as to present a rich and costly
appearance. In the drawing-room the ornaments consist of costly
mirrors, bronze-work, stained glass, paintings, &c. On the panels
between the stateroom passages are the arms of the different States of
the Confederacy painted in the highest style of art, and framed with
bronze-work.
“The pillars between are inlaid with mirrors, framed with rosewood, and
at the top and bottom are bronzed sea-shells of costly workmanship.
In the centre of each are groups of allegorical figures, representing
the ocean mythology of the ancients, in bronze and burnished gold.
The ceiling is elaborately wrought, carved and gilded.” The vessel
was steam-heated, an improvement introduced for the first time in
steam-ships.
The _Atlantic_ left New York on April 27, 1850, with about a hundred
passengers on board and a valuable cargo. Outside Sandy Hook she met
some drifting ice which damaged her paddles, and she had to proceed at
reduced speed across the ocean as the weather was too tempestuous to
permit of the floats being repaired. On May 8, one of her condensers
gave way, and the steamer was hove-to for forty hours, after which she
resumed her voyage still at reduced speed. She arrived at Liverpool on
May 10. The _Pacific_ sailed from New York on May 25, and was followed
by the _Arctic_, _Baltic_, and _Antarctic_. Their beam was such that
they could not enter any existing docks at Liverpool, and a dock at the
North End was therefore constructed for their accommodation.
Special interest attached to the arrival of the _Atlantic_ owing to the
presence in the river of the new Cunarder _Asia_, just built by Messrs.
Steel at Greenock, and engined by Robert Napier. An opportunity was
thus afforded of comparing these two representative vessels, as the
_Asia_, outward bound, steamed past her rival and exchanged salutes.
The _Atlantic_ and her sister ship the _Arctic_ excelled in dimensions
every steam-ship hitherto built. The length was 276 feet on the
keel and 282 feet on the main deck, beam 45 feet, breadth across
paddle-boxes 75 feet, depth of hold 31 feet 7 inches, diameter of
paddle-wheels 36 feet, diameter of cylinder 96 inches, stroke 9 feet;
the side-lever engines were of 1000 horse-power, and the tonnage 2860.
The saloons were 67 feet long by 20 feet wide, and the dining saloons
60 feet long by 42 feet wide.
Two remarkable points of difference between them and the Cunarders
and all British steamers at that time were their rounded sterns and
straight cutwaters without bowsprits. Powerfully engined though they
were, they depended considerably on sail-power. Their paddles, like
those of so many American steamers, were placed rather far aft, the
idea being that a more uniform immersion of the blades was thus
obtained. The Collins steamers were all built with flat floors (a
departure in the shape of the hull to which considerable exception was
taken but which was justified by events), long, wedge-like bows, and a
long, easy run to the stern. The frames were of white and live oak, and
the stout timbers were filled in solidly to the turn of the bilge. The
huge oak keelsons were specially heavy under the boilers and engines.
The planking was hard pine, metal-fastened below the water-line by
copper bolts and above by galvanised iron. The frames were strengthened
by a latticework of iron bands. Their wood construction was more
massive than that of a line-of-battle ship. In his patriotic efforts
to gain the Atlantic supremacy for his country Collins did far more
than the Government required. The _Arctic_ and _Atlantic_ were built
by W. H. Brown of New York, and their construction was superintended
by G. Steers, who modelled the schooner-yacht _America_, the winner of
the cup which has not yet been “lifted.” Mr. Faron, of the firm Sewell
and Faron, chief engineer to the United States Government, was the
chief engineer of the company, and designed the _Arctic_ and _Baltic_
boilers. These were arranged with double furnaces and had lower
water-spaces connected by a row of tubes, round which the heated gas
circulated; there was also a hanging plate which checked a too rapid
flow to the funnel and increased the combustion. The _Arctic_ burned
about 83 tons of coal in 24 hours, which gave her a speed of 316·4
knots for the day. Her gross consumption was 87 tons when she covered
320 knots in 24 hours.
The funds subscribed were exhausted long before the construction of the
boat was finished, and the Government not only granted the company’s
appeal for assistance, but went further and released the company from
its obligation to build the fifth steamer. It increased the subsidy to
33,000 dollars per round voyage, but in return it demanded an increased
speed, which, according to Mr. Bayard in Congress, would enable the
Collins steamers to overtake any vessel they wished to pursue, and
escape from any vessel they wished to avoid.
For some years the Collins Line seemed to have secured the premier
position in the Atlantic trade. Its vessels eclipsed the Cunarders
in size, speed, and luxury. The company, however, was expensively,
almost wastefully, managed, and the steamers were run extravagantly.
Great though its income was, its expenditure was greater. At its best
the Collins Line never paid a dividend and its fall was hastened by
two terrible disasters. Its first great calamity was the loss of the
_Arctic_, which was rammed by the French iron steamer _Vesta_ in a very
thick fog between sixty and seventy miles from Cape Race. The _Arctic_
was so well built that, although three large holes were torn in her
side, through two of which the water poured, no apprehension was felt
for her safety, and her captain sent a boat in charge of one of his
officers to the other vessel to rescue those on board if necessary. One
of the _Vesta’s_ crew was killed in the collision, and several others
on board were injured. The rest of the crew and passengers made a rush
for her boats and launched two, one of which was swamped; the other
was occupied by two of the crew and several passengers, who, disobeying
their captain’s orders, cut their boat adrift and were soon lost to
sight in the fog.
Meanwhile on the _Arctic_ it had been discovered that the steamer was
sinking. Preparations were made to save the lives of the passengers and
crew by means of the boats. One of the tackles of the first boat to be
filled gave way while it was being lowered to the water, and all her
occupants, except one sailor who seized the other tackle and a lady who
clung to him, were precipitated into the sea and drowned. Among those
who lost their lives at this time were Mrs. Collins, the wife of the
managing owner, and their son and daughter. The second boat was lowered
without mishap and was provisioned and quickly filled with passengers.
The water continued to pour into the ship, and she was headed for the
nearest port, but in about a quarter of an hour the furnaces were put
out. All the other boats but one left the ship, the exception being a
large lifeboat which there were not sufficient seamen left on board to
launch.
This boat is believed to have been filled by passengers, who thought
that it might be left afloat when the ship went down. It is probable
that it was so crammed that it had no chance of floating, and that it
was sucked down with its occupants in the vortex caused by the sinking
of the steamer.
The loss of life is variously stated. One version is that the
_Arctic_ had three hundred and sixty-five persons on board of whom
only eighty-seven survived. An American writer, however, states: “The
_Arctic_ foundered with two hundred and twelve of her passengers and
one hundred and ten of her crew.”[66] The _Vesta_ left St. Peter’s the
day before the disaster with one hundred and forty-seven passengers
and a crew of fifty, of whom thirteen were reported missing when she
reached St. John’s.
[66] “The American Mercantile Marine,” by W. L. Marvin.
[Illustration: THE “ADRIATIC” (COLLINS LINE, 1857).]
The _Pacific_, a sister ship to the _Arctic_, was the next of the
Collins liners to succumb to the perils of the sea. She sailed
from Liverpool for New York in January 1856 and never reached her
destination, and not a trace of her has been discovered to reveal
her fate. The loss of these two splendid steamers within two years
seriously crippled the Collins organisation.
Mr. Collins, to replace the _Arctic_, ordered the fifth steamer which
was stipulated for in the contract with the United States Government
at the time the line was started. This steamer, the _Adriatic_, like
the other four vessels of the line, was in excess of the American
Government’s requirements, and was larger, speedier, and even more
luxuriously fitted than any of her four predecessors. She was built
by George Steers at New York and launched in April 1855. She was 355
feet in length, 50 feet beam, and 33 feet deep, with a gross tonnage
of 4144 tons. Her cost was £240,000. It was hoped that this splendid
vessel would retrieve the falling fortunes of the Collins Line, but
in the following month a bitter attack was made in Congress upon the
policy under which the line had been granted Government aid, and in
consequence of this attack the subsidy to the line was reduced. The
mail pay to the Collins Line was lessened by the withdrawal of the
473,000 dollars added in 1852; and the original subsidy of 385,000
dollars, or considerably less than half the amount on which Collins
had been relying, was now to be paid to the company. This was further
reduced to 346,000 dollars, and in 1858 the subsidy was withdrawn
altogether. The line ceased operations at once. The _Adriatic_ made one
trip to Liverpool and, after lying idle there for some time, passed
into the hands of the promoters of the Galway Line.
An equally unfortunate enterprise was the attempt to establish a line
between Galway and America.
The project of connecting the west coast of Ireland with Newfoundland
by a line of fast steamers has always had its attractions for those
who are seeking to cut down the ocean voyage to a minimum, but so far
as the passengers are concerned, the prospect of a long land journey
from St. John’s or Halifax to New York has always militated against the
scheme. There are also the no less serious drawbacks of a trip across
the Irish Sea to Dublin or other Irish port, continued by a railway
journey to Galway before finally embarking on the ocean voyage. For the
conveyance of mails this might be the fastest possible route, but until
the Government adopt the exceedingly unlikely course of subsidising a
line of mail packets for this purpose, the Galway-Newfoundland route
has no prospect of becoming a serious factor in the North Atlantic
traffic.
The first proposal to use Galway was made in 1851, when some of the
Irish railway authorities and an American named Wagstaff visited the
port, and in June of that year sent the steamer _Viceroy_ to New York
via Halifax. She was a wooden cross-channel boat and not suited for
the work, and nothing more was done in the matter until 1857, when the
project was revived by a Manchester man named Lever. Two steamers, the
_Indian Empire_ and _Propeller_, were chartered for the enterprise and
sailed for New York via Halifax in the next year. In the autumn of that
year, the Newfoundland Government contracted with the promoters of
the line to carry the mails monthly from Galway to St. John’s, and a
service of six steamers was to be established. The British Government
and the company entered into a contract whereby the company was to
carry the mails from Galway to Portland (Maine), and to Boston and New
York. Four steamers were ordered but were not up to the requirements
of the postal authorities in respect to speed, and one or two were
not perfectly seaworthy, and the effort to maintain the service with
chartered steamers not being satisfactory--only the last of the Collins
liners, the _Adriatic_, which had been purchased, being able to run
to stipulated time--the company, after a series of misfortunes which
probably constitutes a record, went into liquidation, and the mail
contract was cancelled, after resulting in a heavy financial loss to
every one who had anything to do with it.
CHAPTER VII
THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEAM AUXILIARY
The Atlantic was not the only scene of steam-ship enterprise in the
early part of the nineteenth century, for merchants and shipowners
recognised the importance of a faster and more regular communication
between England and the Far East, and began to consider the
desirability of employing steam-ships as soon as these vessels had
shown that they could be used for sea voyages. At a meeting held in
London in 1822 and attended by a number of merchants engaged in the
Eastern trade, it was decided to form a steam-ship company to establish
regular communication with India via the Cape of Good Hope, and to
send Lieutenant Johnston to India to endeavour to interest merchants
there in the scheme. The meeting naturally was in favour of the
all-sea route by the Cape, but Johnston went to India via Suez, and
became so convinced of the superiority of the latter route for mails
and passengers and light merchandise that he became an enthusiastic
advocate for its adoption. His mission to Calcutta was so successful
that, in December 1823, Lord Amherst, the Governor, officially
signified approval of steam-ship communication between the two
countries, and recommended the Council to make a grant of 20,000 rupees
to any British person or company who should, before the end of 1826,
“permanently establish steam communication between England and India,
either by the Cape of Good Hope or the Red Sea, and make two voyages
out and two voyages home, occupying not more than seventy days on each
passage.”[67]
[67] Lindsay’s “History of Shipping.”
Thanks to the generosity of the Rajah of Oude a sum of 80,000 rupees
was subscribed in India. The enthusiasm shown in the East for the
project induced the promoters in London to charter the _Enterprise_,
which was then being built by Messrs. Gordon and Co. at Deptford.
Johnston returned to England, and when the _Enterprise_ was completed
he was appointed her captain. She was a wooden paddle-steamer, 122 feet
on the keel, and 27 feet beam, and of 479 tons register. Her engines
of 120 horse-power were estimated to give her a speed of eight knots
per hour in good weather. Her boiler, which was of copper in one piece,
cost £7000 and weighed about 32 tons. She sailed from London on August
16, 1825, and arrived at Calcutta on December 7. Her stoppages to
replenish her bunkers occupied ten days, so that her actual travelling
time was ninety-three days. She depended largely on sail. This voyage
is of importance as it was the first made to India by a vessel built
for ocean navigation and fitted with an auxiliary engine.
The _Enterprise_ cost £43,000, and soon after her arrival, as the first
Burmese war was then in progress, the Indian Government gave £40,000
for her.
The _Falcon_, a sailing ship of 176 tons, and having steam auxiliary,
went to Calcutta in 1825, but it is to the steamer _Enterprise_ that
the honour belongs of having first reached Calcutta as a steamer. All
that the voyage of the _Falcon_ proved was that she arrived safely; her
engines were not much used and her small size shows that even if she
had been filled with coal she could not have steamed all the way to
Calcutta, nor were there sufficient coaling stations to enable her to
do so.
The pilot of the _Enterprise_ at Calcutta was Thomas Waghorn, then in
the Bengal pilot service. The Calcutta Steam Committee, on behalf of
the Indian Government, consulted him in 1827 on the question of the
establishment of steam navigation between England and India, but though
he visited a number of towns in England, his project of establishing a
regular line of steamers via the Cape of Good Hope was not carried out.
This, however, was not his only scheme.
One of the difficulties in the way of establishing steamers on the
Red Sea route was the high price of coal at Suez. Waghorn ascertained
that coal could be brought to Suez by camel from Cairo at a reasonably
cheap rate, and he therefore urged the adoption of this route. While
he was still in England he heard that the East India Company intended
to send the _Enterprise_ from India to Suez, and he then offered to
make a trial voyage. He was appointed courier to the East, and left
London in 1829, undertaking to carry despatches to Bombay and return
with the reply in three months, a time which was usually occupied by
sailing ships in voyaging one way. When he reached Suez he found that
the _Enterprise_ had broken down on the way, and he accordingly took
an open boat and began the journey down the Red Sea. Fortunately,
the company’s sloop _Thetis_, which had been sent to look for him,
picked him up and took him to Bombay, and he returned to London in
the appointed time. A steamer service down the Red Sea was then
established. The _Hugh Lindsay_ made the voyage from Bombay to Suez and
back once a year until 1836, when two large steamers, the _Atalanta_
and _Berenice_, took her place. During these years Waghorn devoted
himself to overcoming the difficulties and dangers of travel across the
desert from Alexandria to Suez.
“He associated with the Arabs, he lived in their tents, and gradually
taught them that pay was better than plunder. He established a regular
service of caravans, built eight halting-places between Cairo and Suez,
and made what had been a dangerous path beset with robbers a secure
highway. Before he left Egypt in 1841 he had a service of English
carriages, vans, and horses to convey travellers.”[68]
[68] “Dictionary of National Biography.”
Meanwhile the service on the Cape route had been steadily improving.
By 1840, Messrs. Green of Blackwall owned a fleet of splendid East
Indiamen fitted with auxiliary steam. One of them, the _Earl of
Hardwicke_, which may be taken as typical of the others, had a
steam-engine of 30 horse-power, working paddle-wheels intended to
propel her in light airs and calms, such as are common in the region
of the tropics. These paddles could be disengaged in one minute from
the engine whenever it was desired to use sails alone. Although the
_Earl of Hardwicke_ was of 1600 tons, the space occupied by her boilers
and engine was only 24 feet in length and 10 feet in width of the main
deck, no part going into the hold or above deck. This engine in calm
weather could give the ship a speed of five knots an hour on a coal
consumption of three tons in twenty-four hours. In August 1840, in
steaming from London to Spithead on her way to Calcutta, she beat the
_Wellington_ by twelve hours, the steam-engine working for upwards
of forty hours. The ship was expected to make the voyage in 75 days,
which, considering that she would have to go round the Cape, was quick
work. She was a sister ship to the famous _Vernon_, with which the
experiment of auxiliary steam for a regular East Indiaman was first
made. The _Vernon_ went from Calcutta to Spithead in 86 days, and for
the first eight days and nights, in going down the Bay of Bengal, the
wind was so light that she had to use her engines all the time. On
the run from the Cape to Spithead she made the then shortest passage
on record of 32 days, during which she used her steam nine days. The
engines of the _Vernon_ were constructed by Messrs. Seaward and Capel,
of the Canal Ironworks, Limehouse, who were also builders of many other
marine engines, some of large size, including that of the _Nicholai_,
the largest steamer then belonging to Russia.
[Illustration: THE “EARL OF HARDWICKE.”]
When the _Vernon_ left Blackwall on her trial trip her engines gave
her a speed of about three and a half miles an hour, against a strong
wind. Both these vessels, like all the rest of the Indiamen, were
full-rigged ships. They were built to be sailing ships with steam
auxiliary, and therefore were necessarily very differently constructed
from the vessels which were launched about the same time for the North
Atlantic trade, such as the _Great Western_, the _President_, and the
_British Queen_, all of which were steamers with sail auxiliary. The
interdependence of the two means of propulsion must not be lost sight
of in considering the naval architecture of the period. The Indiamen of
Messrs. Green illustrated the adaptation of steam as an aid to sailing
vessels, which even then had not attained their full magnificence
and power, but which showed continual improvement in speed as fresh
ones were built. This improvement was partly forced upon sailing-ship
builders by the opinion, universally held at that time, that steam
could never supersede sail for long voyages, owing to the difficulty
of carrying enough coal. The steamers designed for the North Atlantic
trade, on the other hand, were only intended for a short voyage--short,
that is, in comparison with those made by the Indiamen. Consequently,
the North Atlantic liners have developed as steamers first and foremost
with sail auxiliary, and the latest flyers on this ocean would be of
little use as flyers if trading to the Far East or Australia, because
they could not carry enough coal and would have to stop frequently to
replenish their bunkers, while the liners of the southern and eastern
oceans would be equally unable to compete on the North Atlantic routes.
Some sailing ships with steam auxiliary were, however, seen on the
Atlantic. One of the most remarkable boats of the time was the
_Massachusetts_. She arrived at Liverpool after a run of thirty
days from New York, which she left on November 17, 1845. She had an
Ericsson screw-propeller, which could be lifted when it was desired
to run her under sail only. Her screw was merely an auxiliary and was
only intended to be of use in calms or against light head winds. She
was confessedly an experiment. Her engine-space meant one-tenth less
cargo-space, but it was the owner’s idea that, if the voyage were
accomplished with so much greater rapidity than the ordinary packet
ships could achieve as to recompense them for the loss of tonnage,
the experiment would be a success. Her owner was Mr. R. B. Forbes
of Boston, and she cost altogether about £16,000. She sailed from
Liverpool for New York, beating such well-known sailing ships as the
_Shenandoah_ and _Adirondack_ by thirteen days, and the _Henry Clay_ by
five days.
[Illustration: THE “MASSACHUSETTS.”]
The United States _Nautical Magazine_ in 1845 said: “Let it be
distinctly understood that we do not call her a steamer or expect
her to make steamboat speed except under canvas; her steam-power is
strictly auxiliary to her canvas.” The _Massachusetts_ was the first
ship of a line intended to run between New York and Liverpool under the
American flag. Her length on deck was 161 feet, and her beam 31 feet
9 inches, with 20 feet depth of hold, and she was about 751 tonnage.
Her full poop extended as far forward as the main-mast, and contained
accommodation for thirty-five passengers. Her bow was very sharp. She
carried what is known as a false bow, which increased her sharpness,
and was filled in on somewhat original lines. In her equipment
everything that could be devised was provided. She carried lensed
lights on each bow, and also aft between the main and mizzen masts. Her
ventilators were similar to those on the Cunard steamers. Each stool,
chair, and settee had airtight compartments, so that it could be used
as a lifebuoy; she was well supplied with boats in case of accidents.
The fact that she had an engine did not interfere with her sail
equipment, for she was square-rigged throughout and carried skysails
on all three masts. Her sail area was 3833 yards. A peculiarity of
her rig was that all the masts were fidded abaft the lower masthead;
but the advantages of this innovation were not found, in this or any
other ship in which they were tried, to be very great, and it was not
commonly adopted. It was thought that by fidding the masts in this
fashion a vessel might be kept more steadily on her course when it
became necessary for the sailors to reef or take in sail. She carried
a condensing engine with two cylinders, working nearly at right
angles, of 26 inches diameter with a stroke of three feet. She had two
“waggon” boilers, each 14 feet long, 7 feet wide, and 9 feet high, with
a furnace to each, and a blowing engine and blower for raising steam
quickly. The diameter of the propeller was nine and a half feet. It was
made of wrought copper and composition metal, and could be raised out
of the water when the steam-power was not required. This was effected
by means of a shaft from the engine-room through the stern, above and
parallel to the propeller shaft. The upper shaft revolving raised the
propeller and placed it close against the flat of the stern, where
it was secured with chains. The propeller shaft passed close to the
stern-post on the larboard side, and rested in a socket bolted to the
stern-post, and was further supported by a massive brace above. Messrs.
Hogg and Co. of New York constructed the engines to Captain Ericsson’s
design. The rudder had the peculiarity of a “shark’s mouth” cut across
it. This is an opening or gap extending a considerable distance
across the rudder so that the rudder itself shall not be impeded by
the screw-shaft which extends beyond it, the upper and lower portions
of the rudder passing above and below the shaft when turned in that
direction. Several steam auxiliary vessels were thus fitted, but it
was not long ere the plan was adopted of cutting away the dead wood
in front of the rudder-post and placing the screw before the rudder
instead of behind.
This enterprise was short-lived, as the vessel made but two round
voyages and thereafter remained in American waters. A sister boat, the
_Edith_, was purchased by the United States Government before she had
made a voyage. The _Massachusetts_ was chartered to carry American
troops to Mexico in 1846, and continued in the United States Navy until
1870, when she was sold and converted into the sailing ship _Alaska_,
under which name she made some good passages.
The _Vanderbilt_, also an auxiliary steamer, built by Simonson of New
York for his uncle, Commodore Vanderbilt, in 1855, was 331 feet in
length, and had a gross tonnage of 3360. She was probably the first and
perhaps the only American-built vessel with two overhead beams to cross
the Atlantic; certainly her appearance attracted no small amount of
attention. Her two cylinders were each 90 inches diameter and 12 feet
stroke; her indicated horse-power was 2800 and her boiler-pressure was
as high as 18 lb. The engines were built at the Allaire works. She ran
on the New York, Havre, and Cowes route until November 1860, besides
going once to Bremen in 1858, and on the outbreak of war was presented
by the Commodore to the United States Government. She was afterwards
laid up and bought in 1873 by a San Francisco firm, who removed the
engines and turned her into the full-rigged three-masted ship _The
Three Brothers_; she was next bought by a British firm to end her days
as a hulk at Gibraltar.
One of the last of the vessels carrying steam for admittedly auxiliary
purposes only was the clipper _Annette_, built by Messrs. Russell and
Co. in 1863. She was fitted with a screw and a small oscillating engine
with cylinders 3 feet in diameter and 3 feet stroke, and a tubular
boiler 9¹⁄₂ feet long by 13 feet high gave steam at 20 lb. pressure.
Her screw was 11 feet in diameter with 22 feet pitch, and a universal
joint connected it to the engine-shaft so that it could be lowered or
raised as desired. The masts carried 1418 square yards of canvas.
The full-rigged, fast-sailing clipper ships, fitted with auxiliary
screw propellers, found one of the finest representatives of their
class in the _Sea King_, which was built at Glasgow for the trade with
China, where several splendid vessels, fast under sail and carrying
powerful auxiliary engines, were engaged. They were peculiarly suitable
for those waters, for the coaling stations were few and far between,
and coal was expensive, and their engines consumed a great deal more
fuel in proportion to results than do those of modern steamers. The
_Sea King_ was composite built; that is, she had an iron frame with
wood planking. Her screw could be lifted when the wind was favourable,
and her ability to show a clean pair of heels to most sailing craft
afloat is proved by her making the passage home from Shanghai in
seventy-nine days, or, after allowing time for coaling _en route_,
seventy-four days. She was of 1018 registered tonnage, and her engines
were of 200 nominal horse-power; she was 220 feet in length by 32¹⁄₂
feet beam, and 20¹⁄₂ feet depth.
Her career for a time was exciting. She was one of the many vessels
bought by the agents of the Confederate States in 1864, nominally as
a blockade-runner, but she became a privateer--pirate the Northerners
called her--and as such she had the distinction of being the only
vessel which carried the Confederate flag round the world. Her name
was changed to _Shenandoah_ when she was purchased; she was neither
the first nor the last famous sailing vessel of that name. The last
_Shenandoah_, the biggest wooden sailing vessel ever built in America,
a four-masted barque, returned the fire of a Spanish gunboat in the
recent Spanish-American War, and then out-sailed her. The commander
of the _Shenandoah_ of the ’sixties was James Tredell Waddell, whose
record justified his appointment. He was formerly an officer in the
United States Navy, and was wounded and lamed for life in a duel in
1842. He nevertheless served in the Mexican War and then commanded the
American storeship _Release_ at the building of the Panama Railway.
All his officers and crew were down with yellow fever, but with a few
convalescent seamen he sailed his vessel to Boston. He declined, in
1862, the offer to command one of the vessels in the bomb fleet then
being fitted out to attack New Orleans, but instead he got through the
blockade from Annapolis to Richmond and joined the Confederate Navy.
He was in command of the ram _Louisiana_ when the Southern fleet was
attacked and scattered by the Federal fleet under Admiral Farragut,
and sank the _Louisiana_ rather than let her be captured. Next he was
ordered to take command of the _Shenandoah_, then being fitted out at
Liverpool for a cruise in the Pacific. He commissioned his ship off
Madeira in October 1864 and set sail for the south. He captured and
either burnt or sank nine American sailing ships before he arrived at
Melbourne on January 25, 1865, but the ship’s stay was a short one, for
it was expected an American vessel or two would be on her track, and
she left Port Phillip on February 8, 1865. Three months later she began
her destructive work among the whalers in the Okhotsk and Behring Seas
and the Arctic Ocean. Three months after General Lee had surrendered at
Appomattox Court-house, the _Shenandoah_ continued her activity, and it
was not until the British barque _Barracouta_ was spoken that Waddell
learnt that the war was ended. Waddell then sailed the _Shenandoah_ to
Liverpool and surrendered her to the British Government, by whom she
was handed over in November 1865 to the United States Consul. During
her career under Waddell’s command she captured thirty-eight vessels,
of which six were released on bond and thirty-two were sunk or burnt.
She afterwards passed into the possession of the Sultan of Zanzibar,
and some years later was lost with all hands in a gale. Waddell
returned to America in due time and commanded the _San Francisco_, of
the Pacific Mail Line, until she struck a rock and went to the bottom.
All the passengers were saved and Waddell was the last to leave the
ship.[69]
[69] Appleton’s “Cyclopædia of American Biography.”
The other most notorious blockade-runner and commerce-harrier was the
Liverpool-built _Alabama_, a wooden three-masted screw steamer, rigged
as a barque; she was of 1040 tons register and 220 feet in length
and had horizontal engines of 300 nominal horse-power, operating one
propeller and giving her a speed, under steam, of nearly 13 knots,
while with steam and sail together she could cover 15 knots. The story
of her exploits and of her destruction by the United States wooden
cruiser _Kearsarge_ off Cherbourg in June 1864, and of the “_Alabama_
claims,” is too well known to need repetition here.[70]
[70] A good account may be found in Appleton’s “Cyclopædia.”
The mail route between England and India via the Cape was admittedly
slow; and it seemed possible to carry the mails by way of Suez in a
much shorter time. The eastern half of this service was maintained
in a very inefficient manner by the East India Company. The British
Government had inaugurated in February 1830 its mail steam-packet
service from Falmouth to the Mediterranean. Up to this date the mails
had been carried in sailing brigs, although steam navigation with the
Mediterranean had already been established and the steamers beat the
sailing brigs by many days. The first of these Government steam packets
was the _Meteor_, and the others employed included the _African_,
_Messenger_, _Firebrand_, _Echo_, _Hermes_, _Colombia_, _Confiance_,
and _Carron_.
The Dublin and London Steam Packet Company, under the management of
Messrs. Bourne, decided in 1834 upon establishing a line of steamers
between London and the Spanish peninsula. The proposed line was to be
called the Peninsular Steam Navigation Company, and its first steamer
was probably the _Royal Tar_. This steamer, by the way, had previously
been chartered in 1834 to Don Pedro and then to the Queen Regent of
Spain.
It is hardly correct, however, to describe these Admiralty vessels as
warships, for the Admiralty steam vessels at that time were gunboats,
or despatch vessels, steam for line-of-battle ships not being used
until some years later.
The Peninsular Company chartered a number of vessels for its early
service, but it was not until 1837 that it commenced to despatch
mail-packets regularly from London to Lisbon and Gibraltar under
contract with the British Government, which at that time and for
twenty years afterwards was represented by the Lords Commissioners of
the Admiralty. This contract was tendered for by both the Peninsular
Steam Navigation Company and a concern called the British and Foreign
Steam Navigation Company, but the latter was unable to convince
the Government that it possessed the resources, both financial and
shipping, which would enable it to carry out the engagement. The
Peninsular Company, on the other hand, was able to give the required
assurance. The company undertook, in return for an annual subsidy
of £29,600, to convey the mails monthly to the Peninsula. The
pioneer vessel of this service was the _Iberia_, of 690 tons and 200
horse-power, which sailed in September 1837. Altogether the company
had ten vessels, two of which were chartered from the City of Dublin
Company.
The statement is often made that the steamer _William Fawcett_[71] was
the first boat of the company; she was built in 1829 by Caleb Smith of
Liverpool, and her engines were by Messrs. Fawcett and Preston, also of
Liverpool; and after being used for some years as a ferry-boat on the
Mersey she was placed on the Liverpool and Dublin route and may have
been “chartered for a short time to the Peninsular Steam Navigation
Company in 1835 or 1836, as she does not appear in the company’s
advertised sailing list for 1838.”[72]
[71] See the Frontispiece to this book.
[72] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
In 1839 the British and French Governments arranged that the Indian
mails should be sent by way of Marseilles and thence taken by an
Admiralty packet to Malta to be transhipped to another Admiralty
packet for conveyance to Alexandria. As was to be expected, an
arrangement of this sort, involving such possibilities of delay, did
not last long, and the Government advertised for tenders for the
mails to be carried between Alexandria and England, with calls at
Gibraltar and Malta both ways. Four tenders were sent in, and that
of the Peninsular Company, which offered to do what was required for
£34,200, was accepted. The company also offered to charge reduced fares
to officers travelling on the public service and to carry Admiralty
packages for nothing.
The urgency of a more regular steam communication between England and
India than was supplied by the sailing or auxiliary Indiamen was now
being extensively discussed, and the Government was asked to subsidise
a line of steamers between England and Calcutta which should make the
passage in thirty days. The Peninsular Company offered to carry the
mails between England and Alexandria with the two steamers _Great
Liverpool_ and _Oriental_, and in 1840 the company was incorporated
by Royal Charter under the name of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company, with a view to the extension of its operations to
the Far East. The _Great Liverpool_ was of 1540 tons, and had been
built for the Liverpool and New York trade, and the _Oriental_ was of
1600 tons and 450 horse-power. The company was afterwards requested to
place two smaller steamers on the Malta and Corfu branch of the mail
service, and did so for no less than £10,712 below what it had cost to
maintain the Admiralty packets.
[Illustration: THE “HINDOSTAN” (P. & O. COMPANY, 1842).]
The inadequate service maintained between Calcutta and Suez had given
rise to many complaints, and at last, after considerable pressure had
been brought to bear on the East India Company by the Government in
London, the former consented to enter into a contract with the P. & O.
Company for the conveyance of the mails between these two points. The
company despatched its first steamer to India in September 1842, this
being the _Hindostan_, a fine vessel of 2017 tons, and 520 horse-power.
She was a three-masted vessel, and carried square sails on the
foremast, and of her two funnels one was set before and the other abaft
the paddles. Her departure was regarded as of national importance, and
the warships she passed as she left port were manned in her honour.
She was placed on the route between Calcutta and Suez, with calls at
Madras and Ceylon; and as other steamers followed, the company was soon
able to contract for the conveyance of the mails monthly from Ceylon
to Hong-Kong, with calls at Penang and Singapore, for a subvention of
£45,000. The company received £115,000 for its service between Calcutta
and Suez. The Eastern services were attended with no little difficulty.
At Suez and Aden fresh-water supplies had to be organised, and coaling
stations, docks, and store establishments had to be established
wherever necessary.
The scramble over the isthmus of Suez, whence came the name of the
“overland route,” was one of the great drawbacks of this way to the
East, and many persons preferred to travel to India by way of the
Cape. In spite of its name the overland route was mostly a waterway,
for the Mahmoudieh Canal enabled the P. & O. Company to transport its
passengers and goods from Alexandria to the Nile, where they travelled
by steamer to Cairo, and the land portion of the journey was rather
less than 100 miles across the desert from Cairo to Suez. Caravans,
sometimes numbering more than three thousand camels, were employed to
convey a single steamer’s loading between Suez and Cairo. In passing
from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean port every package had to undergo
three separate transfers.
“For nearly twenty years this system of working the company’s traffic
continued in operation, but it sufficed for carrying on a trade which,
for the value of the merchandise in proportion to its bulk, has, it may
safely be said, never been equalled. It attained sometimes the annual
value of forty millions sterling.”[73]
[73] P. & O. Handbook, 1905 edition.
The East India Company’s service between Suez and Bombay was as bad as
that formerly maintained with Calcutta, owing to indifferent management
and unsuitable steamers, and as it cost about 30_s._ per mile, whereas
the P. & O. maintained its services to India and China for 17_s._ per
mile, there was a renewal of the agitation for the service to be taken
out of the control of the East India Company and entrusted to a concern
which could work it better and more economically. Parliament in 1851
supported the agitation, but the East India Company would not give way
until the fates were too strong for it; one lot of Bombay mails went
to the bottom in a native sailing vessel in which they had been placed
at Aden, as the company had no steamer ready for them at Suez. At the
request of the Government, the P. & O. Company agreed to take over this
service for a subvention of £24,000 per annum, as against the £105,000,
or thereabouts, which the old arrangement had cost.
The P. & O. Company opened its Australian service in 1852 as a branch
line, but this connection proved so beneficial to the company and
the Australian Colonies alike, that in course of time it was made a
main-line service, to the mutual advantage of the company and the
Colonies. So many of the company’s steamers were employed in the
Crimean War and during the Indian Mutiny for the Army, that the
Australian portion of the service was dropped for some time.
[Illustration: H.M. TROOPSHIP “HIMALAYA” IN PLYMOUTH SOUND. (THE “ROYAL
GEORGE,” 120 GUNS, IN BACKGROUND.)]
In 1852 the company added eleven vessels to its fleet, including the
celebrated _Himalaya_, then the largest steam-ship afloat and the
fastest ocean-going vessel, with the possible exception of a few on the
North Atlantic. Eleven of the company’s steamers were chartered to the
Government as transports during the Crimean War, and one of them, the
_Colombo_, was nicknamed _Santa Claus_ when she arrived at Sebastopol
one Christmas Eve with presents and sorely needed stores and provisions
for the troops.
The East India Company in 1855 asked for tenders for the Calcutta and
Burmah mails, and an agreement was entered into with Messrs. McKinnon
and Co. of Glasgow, but the steamers they employed were unsuitable and
small and the enterprise was a failure. Two steamers, the _Baltic_
and _Cape of Good Hope_, were sent out for the work, and fortunately
for the owners were acquired soon afterwards as transports during the
Indian Mutiny.
This undertaking was known as the Calcutta and Burmah Steam Navigation
Company, and was at that time purely local in its operations. Its
steamer the _Cape of Good Hope_ was lost in a collision in the Hoogly,
and another steamer of the line was wrecked while on her way out to
India on her first voyage while off the coast of Ireland.
However, the company changed its name in 1862 to the British India
Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., and notwithstanding its inauspicious
start under its old name, it has grown apace and is now one of the
principal lines trading between England and the Eastern Hemisphere.
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, which threatened serious
financial loss to the P. & O. Company, proved of great benefit to the
British India Company. The P. & O. “for thirty years had built up and
depended for existence upon the only traffic which was possible in
connection with the transit through Egypt, viz., the conveyance of
passengers and goods at rates which were necessarily high, owing to the
conditions under which the work had to be carried on. These conditions
and the rates depending on them were swept away by the opening of the
canal, and the financial consequences were such that for some time the
future existence of the company appeared to hang doubtfully in the
balance. The company’s work had therefore to be reorganised, and a
new fleet procured with what diligence was possible under the adverse
condition of reduced, and at one time of vanished, profit.”
This extract from the company’s Handbook is interesting, but
considering how long the Suez Canal was in building, the company can
hardly be said to have made any undue haste in anticipating the coming
change.
The difficulties of the P. & O. Company, caused by the opening of the
Suez Canal, were increased by the objections which the Post Office
raised to the use of the canal for the passage of the mails instead of
the Egyptian Railway, but it gave way on this point “for a pecuniary
consideration, that is to say, for a sensible abatement of the subsidy,
which was not an easy matter to arrange at a time when the company was
struggling for existence. However, the company made some concession,
and it was finally arranged that the heavy mails which were then sent
from England by sea should in future be carried by the Suez Canal, but
it was not till 1888, when the company had reduced their charge for
the conveyance of the mails by nearly £100,000 per annum, that the
accelerated mails sent via Brindisi were also transferred to the Canal
Route. The company’s connection with the Overland Route through Egypt,
which had existed for half a century, was then finally closed.”[74]
[74] P. & O. Handbook.
[Illustration: H.M. TROOPSHIP “HIMALAYA.”]
The Union Line was founded in 1853 as the Union Steam Collier Company,
and it made a start with five little steamers, the largest of which
were the _Dane_ and _Norman_ of 530 tons. The outbreak of the Crimean
War, and the consequent withdrawal of the P. & O. steamers from the
Southampton and Constantinople service for use as transports, saw the
Union vessels placed upon that service till they also were engaged as
transports, and a sixth vessel was acquired. When the war was ended,
the steamers were placed for a time in the Southampton and Brazil
trade, but it was not a very profitable venture and they were diverted
to the South African trade, the company receiving a subsidy of £30,000
a year for five years for carrying the mails to and from the Cape of
Good Hope. The first sailing was made by the _Dane_ in September 1857,
and the sailings thereafter were monthly. The subsidy was increased
by £3000 the following year on condition that calls were made at St.
Helena and Ascension.
In 1857, Rennie’s “Aberdeen” Line, after having been for many years in
sail, went in for steam and despatched its first steamers, _Madagascar_
and _Waldensian_, from London to South Africa, carrying the mails
between Cape Town and Durban. These are stated to have been the first
steamers on the South African coast. The _Madagascar_, of 500 tons,
was commanded by Captain George Rennie. Like all the long-distance
steamers of her time, she carried a large spread of sail, but her
engines, like those of most of her contemporaries, were calculated to
be able to render her independent of the wind if it did not happen to
be suitable, and therein they marked a great improvement upon those of
an earlier type, which were merely assistants to sail. The steamers
built in the later ’fifties were intended to place reliance principally
on their engines, because of the regularity of passage thereby secured,
rather than upon their sail-power; so that even by this time, although
the vessels were described as auxiliary steamers, a more correct
description would have been that they were steam-propelled vessels
carrying a large spread of canvas.
In March 1859, Messrs. J. and W. Dudgeon issued a circular on the
subject of steam navigation direct to Calcutta round the Cape, pointing
out that “steam hereafter will be almost exclusively employed in the
transport of goods between East India and Australia and the United
Kingdom may be taken for granted; this is merely a matter of time.” The
circular continued that the Cape route would certainly be simple and
safe, and therefore superior to the overland route, especially if it
could be rendered expeditious and profitable. The conditions required
that vessels of not less than 5500 tons, builders’ measurement, be
supplied at a total cost per vessel of £150,000; the voyage, it was
anticipated, would take thirty or thirty-five days, or only a couple
of days more than the overland route. As a correct forecast of the
size of vessels which until a few years ago conveyed the great bulk
of the merchandise between Britain and the Far East, this statement
is interesting and shows how accurately the needs of the traffic were
estimated.
[Illustration: THE “NORMAN” (UNION-CASTLE LINE, 1894).]
In 1855 Messrs. A. and J. Inglis of Pointhouse, Glasgow, entered into
a contract “with a degree of boldness which only complete success
could have justified. They undertook to build the steamer _Tasmanian_
to the order of the European and Australian Steam Navigation Company.
The machinery, of over 3000 horse-power, was at that time considered
of the largest size, and to undertake the erection of it in a little
wooden shop barely twenty feet high, and furnished with a fifteen-ton
crane, was almost heroic. The soleplate of this set of engines weighed
40 tons, and had to be lowered with screw-jacks into a pit dug out to
give height under the travelling crane. Messrs. Inglis actually built
up the crank-shaft themselves, working the material in the smithy.
The _Tasmanian_ proved one of the fastest screw steamers built up to
that time, having easily attained over 14¹⁄₂ knots at Stokes Bay. Her
consumption of coal, about three pounds per indicated horse-power, was
for that day extremely moderate. The engines were constructed with
three cylinders, had a built crank-shaft, valves at the side, variable
expansion, steam reversing gear, a built propeller, and other fittings
which are still reckoned in that comprehensive term, ‘all modern
improvements.’ The engines worked most successfully until the general
adoption of the compound engine made so many admirable contrivances
obsolete.”[75] Shortly after building the _Tasmanian_, Messrs. A. and
J. Inglis began to build for the British India Company with excellent
results to all concerned, and since then they have constructed many
vessels for this famous company.
[75] _Engineering_, July 30, 1897.
In July 1858, owing to the failure of the European and Australian Mail
Company, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company agreed with the Lords
Commissioners of the Admiralty to continue the Australian mail service,
and entered into a mail contract for eight months for a subsidy at the
rate of £185,000 per annum, giving a monthly sailing, with Government
guarantee of £6000 a month under certain circumstances if there were
loss in the working.
The line of mail packets between Panama, New Zealand, and Sydney was
maintained in connection with the R.M.S.P. service to the West Indies
and Panama with the mails, and was regarded as a useful alternative
to the line from Point de Galle to King George’s Sound and other
Australian ports. The Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail
Company was granted a yearly subsidy of £9000 for the main line,
excluding the intercolonial services, the amount to be increased to
£110,000 if the New Zealand Government should afterwards stipulate for
a higher rate of speed. The _Ruahine_, the second vessel laid down, but
the first completed for this line, was constructed by Messrs. Dudgeon,
and was a brig-rigged steamer of 1500 tons, and was 265 feet long, 34
feet beam, and 25 feet 7 inches deep, and had engines of 354 nominal
horse-power, driving Dudgeon’s double screws. She had accommodation
for 100 cabin passengers, 40 second cabin, and 65 in the steerage.
She left London on her maiden voyage in April 1865, and made the
voyage to her final Australian port in 63 days, of which she was only
55 days actually at sea, the other days being accounted for by calls
_en route_. She was expected to make the passage between Panama and
Wellington in 25 days.
The Pacific Steam Navigation Company, which celebrated the seventieth
anniversary of its foundation in February 1910, owes its inception to
the enterprise of William Wheelwright, an American, who was born at
Newburyport, Massachusetts, in 1794, and died in London while visiting
England in September 1873. He began his business life as a printer’s
apprentice, but soon went to sea, and by the time he was nineteen
years old he was in command of a ship. He was captain of the _Rising
Empire_ when she was wrecked in 1823 off the Plate, and then shipped
as supercargo on a vessel bound from Buenos Ayres to Valparaiso. The
following year he was appointed United States Consul at Guayaquil and
five years later removed to Valparaiso. With the view of extending
American commerce and supplying better communication than then existed
on the coast, he established in 1829 a line of passenger vessels
between Valparaiso and Cobija, and in 1835 decided to place steamers
on the west coast. It took him three years to obtain the necessary
concessions from the South American countries concerned. American
capitalists fought shy of his proposals, so in 1838 he came to England,
where he was well received. His plan included the adoption of the
route across the Isthmus of Panama, though many years passed before
this portion of it was realised. The necessary capital, £250,000, was
raised in 5000 shares of £50 each, and a Royal Charter was granted on
February 17, 1840. The two wooden paddle-steamers, _Chili_ and _Peru_,
were built for the line by Messrs. Curling, Young and Co. of London
in 1839; they were sister vessels and were each about 198 feet long
by about 50 feet over the paddle-boxes and were brig-rigged, of about
700 tons gross, and had side-lever engines of about 150 horse-power
by Miller and Ravenhill. In 1840 they passed through the Straits of
Magellan, Mr. Wheelwright being on board one of them, and received a
series of national welcomes along the west coast. Coaling difficulties
were serious, and at one time the boats were laid up for three months.
At last, in order to secure a sufficient supply, Mr. Wheelwright began
to operate mines in Chili. These vessels were not, as has often been
stated, the first steamers to enter the Pacific, for in 1825 a small
steamer, the _Telica_, belonging to a Spaniard, tried to trade on the
coast, but was a financial failure and the owner blew up his vessel and
himself with gunpowder at Guayaquil.
The Pacific Steam Navigation Company came near to being a failure, but
held on, and in 1852, having secured a further postal contract, the
company added four larger vessels of about 1000 tons each to its fleet,
all of them being employed on the purely local service.
In 1852 there was a bimonthly service from Valparaiso to Panama,
where the line had a connection across the isthmus with the Atlantic
navigation. In 1855 the Panama Railway was opened, and the company’s
activity was greatly increased. In the following year also the company
adopted the compound type of engines, which was only just brought out,
being, it is stated, the first steam-ship proprietary to do so for
ocean traffic, and influenced probably by the immense saving thereby
made in fuel consumption.
Contracts were made in 1848 by the United States Government with George
Law, an American financier and shipowner, and his associates, to carry
the American mails from New York to Aspinwall on the Isthmus of Panama,
and with C. H. Aspinwall to convey the mails on the Pacific side from
Panama to San Francisco and ports beyond. This was the inauguration of
the Pacific Mail Line, and its first steamer, the _California_, sailed
from New York in October of that year for San Francisco. The gold rush
was at its height and the demand for the steam-ships was so great that
she was quickly followed by the _Pacific_ and _Oregon_, the latter
built in 1845. All three were wooden paddle-steamers about 200 feet
long and of nearly 1060 tonnage, and made good passages round Cape Horn.
With the arrival of the three steamers on the west coast, the
transisthmian route was adopted for passengers and light merchandise,
and the _Ohio_ and _Georgia_, which Law had built, carried, in 1849,
the first passengers by steam-ship to the isthmus from New York.[76]
[76] Marvin’s “American Merchant Marine.”
When the Pacific Mail Company established a competing line between New
York and Chagres, Law placed an opposition line of four steamers on the
Pacific. In 1851 the rivalry was ended by his purchasing their steamers
on the Atlantic side, and selling to them his new line from Panama to
San Francisco.
Twenty-nine fine steamers, of a total of 38,000 tons, were built in ten
years for the two branches of the Californian trade, and the Pacific
Mail Company, representing an amalgamation of the Law and Aspinwall
interests, assumed the position, which it has retained ever since, of
the leading American steam-ship company in the Pacific. The company
is asserted to have carried 175,000 passengers to the “golden west” in
that decade and to have brought back gold to the value of forty million
pounds sterling.
“The Administration, which was so liberal in helping the Collins
Line to beat the British, contracted with the Pacific Mail Steamship
Company, formed in 1847, for a service from Panama to Astoria, and
from New York, Charleston, and New Orleans to Havana, from which port
the company already had a connecting line to Chagres (Colon), thus
completing the connection between the coasts.... The speed from Panama
to San Francisco was more than ten miles an hour. Thus the United
States had line traffic of first-class character connecting its remote
coasts before it had an American line to Europe. At Panama it connected
with the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, giving service to Peru and
Chili, so that before the middle of the century the Pacific had at
least 5000 miles continuous steam line traffic.”[77]
[77] “The Ocean Carrier,” by J. Russell Smith.
The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company in the seventy years of its
existence has played an eventful part in the history of the mercantile
marine. Its earliest steamers were wooden paddle-boats, and were
among the best, but in spite of their excellence they experienced an
extraordinary run of misfortunes, and losses by fire and wreck marred
the records of the company for several years after its incorporation in
1839. Its charter has been revised and extended from time to time, one
clause being that the whole of the share capital must be British owned,
and the management British. In its long career it has served almost
every port in the West Indies with the mails, and has had no less than
fifty-three contracts. At one stage its management was subjected to
some strong criticism, but under its present management the company
has prospered by leaps and bounds, affording an excellent illustration
of the value of well-directed energy and enterprise.
The history of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company is the record of
the development of the steamship connection between this country and
the West Indian Colonies. In 1840 the original contract was entered
into with the Admiralty Commissioners for executing the office of Lord
High Admiral for the commencement of the mail service to the West India
Colonies, the Spanish Main, New York, Halifax, Mexico, Cuba, &c.
The conditions under which the mail contract was to be carried out were
somewhat onerous. One was that the company should receive on board
every vessel a naval officer or other person and his servant to take
charge of the mails, and that every such person should be recognised
and considered by the company as the agent of the Commissioners in
charge of the mails. He was empowered to require a strict observance of
the contract and “to determine every question whenever arising relative
to proceeding to sea, or putting into harbour, or to the necessity of
stopping to assist any vessel in distress, or to save human life.”
A suitable first-class cabin was to be furnished at the company’s
expense, and appropriated to the officer’s use; he was to be victualled
by the company as a first-cabin passenger without charge, and should he
require a servant, such servant, “and also any person appointed to take
charge of the mails on board,” should also be carried at the company’s
cost. From which it would appear that some very comfortable places were
at the disposal of the Admiralty. The Admiralty representative was also
to be allowed a properly manned four-oared boat to take him ashore
whenever he felt inclined to go. Various penalties were applicable
for breaches of the contract, the fines ranging from £100 for doing
something of which the official did not approve to £500 for a delay
of twelve hours, and a further £500 for every twelve hours “which
shall elapse until such vessel shall proceed direct on her voyage in
the performance of this contract,” so far as the Barbadoes mails were
concerned, and of £200 for mails for other places. Another stipulation
was that naval officers were to be charged only two-thirds of the
ordinary fares as passengers. The company’s subsidy was to be £240,000
per annum.
The company’s first steamer, the _Forth_, was launched at Leith
in 1841, and on January 1, 1842, the West Indian mail service was
established by the sailing of the steamer _Thames_ from Falmouth. On
completion of her voyage she proceeded to Southampton, which has been
the terminal port of the company ever since. The company organised
transit by mules and canoes across the Isthmus of Panama in 1846,
opening up the route via Colon and Panama to the Pacific ports.
In the same year the Admiralty, in order to make a through mail
communication between England and the West Coast of South America,
contracted with the Pacific Steam Navigation Company for the carrying
of mails from Panama in connection with the R.M.S.P. service to Colon,
and the next year the latter company made through arrangements with the
Pacific Steam Navigation Company and the Panama Railroad Company for
traffic from Southampton (via Panama) to the South Pacific Ports.
Enough has been written to indicate in some detail the progress made
in steam-ship construction. Wood was the material chiefly used until
near the middle of the nineteenth century. Iron then began to take its
place and the screw-propeller to supersede the paddle-wheel. Some iron
screw steamers have already been mentioned, but this was inevitable,
as no hard and fast line can be drawn across the history of invention
and commercial enterprise, to separate iron from wood and screw from
paddle. The screw propeller had actually been tried by Stevens in 1802,
and iron boats for inland waters were built as early as 1787.
But the general adoption of iron for building steam-ships and of the
screw for the propulsion of ocean-going ships marks a new era in the
history of steam-ship building.
CHAPTER VIII
EXPERIMENTAL IRON SHIPBUILDING
The suitability of iron for shipbuilding purposes had been admitted
long before the construction of wooden vessels reached its limit as
a profitable undertaking. The first experiments with iron were on a
small scale, but they demonstrated the theory of displacement, so that
observant marine builders had it borne in upon them that flotation
depended rather upon the displacement of the floating body than upon
the specific gravity of the material for which the floating body
was constructed. But the general public was unconvinced, and making
deductions from a limited knowledge of the subject, cried: “Put a piece
of iron on the water and see if it will float.” With the increase in
the size of wooden steamers and sailing vessels there came the demand
for stronger, heavier, and thicker timbers for all parts. This meant
so much more unremunerative weight of hull to be carried and so much
less space available in proportion to the size of the vessel; so that
in time the limit of carrying cargo at a profit and of staunchness of
construction was bound to be reached.
In wooden steam-ships the limit of length was about 275 feet over all;
the _Great Eastern_, built in 1858, proved that there was apparently
no limit to the length of the iron ship.[78]
[78] Mr. John Ward’s Presidential Address to the Institution of
Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland, 1907.
This length has been exceeded by a few American wooden sailing vessels.
The largest square-rigged vessel ever built in America, the shipentine
_Shenandoah_, was of wood; her dimensions being 299·7 feet, beam 49·1
feet, and depth 19·9 feet; 3407 tons gross and 3154 net. She was built
at Bath (Maine) in 1890 for Messrs. A. Sewall and Co., and was acquired
a couple of years ago by the United States Government for a hulk at San
Francisco, but has since been recommissioned. Though not a clipper in
the strict sense of the word, she was a fast sailer and is sometimes
called the last of the Yankee wooden clippers.
As wooden hulls were made larger they displayed a tendency, especially
when they were built to carry propelling engines, to sag or hog, that
is to say, to droop amidships or at the ends. This difficulty was
ingeniously overcome in America, where wooden steamers were built
longer and lighter and shallower than in Great Britain to suit the
vast rivers of that country, by Stevens, who introduced his hogging
frame, to which fuller reference has been made in Chapter II. But in
the steamers of Great Britain, which were entirely for deep sea, this
arrangement was impossible, and the solution of the difficulty had to
be found in the use of a material other than wood.
The only substitute was iron. The change from wood to iron meant a
saving in weight of hull of about thirty to forty per cent., while
it is asserted that in a few cases there has been an even greater
difference. The saving also meant that the difference in weight
could be added to the weight of the cargo, without increasing the
displacement; while another advantage was that the beams and ribs
and stringers were of smaller dimensions, and the space thus gained,
added to that obtained by the substitution of thin iron plates for
wooden planking several inches thick, also very considerably increased
the space available for the stowage of cargo. Practically every part
of a ship was of wood until 1810, in which year the scarcity of oak
resulting from the extensive felling of trees in the English forests
compelled the use of iron for the knees or connections between the
deck-houses and the ribs, and for the breast-hooks and pillars of ships.
An experimental iron barge was made in 1787 by J. Wilkinson the
ironmaster.
As early as 1809 it was proposed by Richard Trevithick and Robert
Dickenson that ships should be built of iron, but the proposal was
received with derision. The _Vulcan_, built in 1818 at Faskine near
Glasgow, is, so far as is known, the first iron vessel constructed for
commercial purposes, and so well was she built that as recently as 1875
she was engaged in transporting coal on the Forth and Clyde Canal, and
looked little the worse for wear. Her builder was one Thomas Wilson.
The first iron steamer, however, was the _Aaron Manby_, built in 1821
at the Horseley Iron Works near Birmingham, to the order of Captain
Napier, afterwards Admiral Sir Charles Napier, and Mr. Manby. She was
put together at Rotherhithe, and in May 1822 at Parliament Stairs took
on board a distinguished party of naval officers and engineers, whom
she conveyed for a trip of several hours up and down the river between
Blackfriars and Battersea. A contemporary newspaper described her as
“the most complete specimen of workmanship in the iron way that has
ever been witnessed.” This little vessel was 106 feet long and 17 feet
broad, and carried a 30-horse-power engine. Her wheels were of the type
known as Oldham’s revolving bars. Her only sea voyage was to France
under the command of Captain Napier. Upon arrival she was employed on
the Seine or Loire. Another iron vessel intended for navigation on the
Seine was shortly afterwards made in this country, and the parts sent
to France to be put together.
Little appears to have been attempted in this country for some years
in the way of iron shipbuilding, although in Ireland three or four
small iron sailers or steamers were constructed for inland navigation
purposes. But in 1828 John Laird of Birkenhead had his attention
directed to iron shipbuilding, and completed his first iron vessel
there the following year. Other builders followed where he showed
the way, and in less than three years there were shipbuilders on the
Thames, Clyde, and east coast of Scotland who were launching iron
vessels, the great majority of which were sailing ships. The famous
yards on the Cheshire side of the Mersey remained for some time the
headquarters of the new industry. The first iron vessels for the United
States--not the first iron-plated vessels, and this is a distinction
which should be noted--were launched there, and so immediate was the
recognition of the advantages of iron ships over wooden ones that by
1835 there had been built at Laird’s the first iron vessels for use on
the rivers Euphrates, Indus, Nile, Vistula, and Don. They were small
compared with the wooden vessels afloat.
The _Garry Owen_, built in 1834 by MacGregor, Laird and Co. of iron,
was only 125 feet in length, 21 feet 6 inches beam, with two engines
totalling 90 horse-power. There were no Lloyd’s rules as to scantlings
for iron steamers in those days, and builders put in as much material
as they thought necessary for the strength of the vessel, which usually
meant a liberal allowance. The _Garry Owen_ was not much to look at,
but she was very strongly built, a circumstance which had a great deal
to do with the development of iron steam-ship building. She nearly came
to grief on her first voyage, for she was overtaken by a violent storm,
which drove her and several other vessels ashore. These others were of
wood. Some of them were soon pounded to pieces by the heavy seas, and
those that escaped total loss were badly damaged; but the _Garry Owen_,
though bumped and dented somewhat, was able to get afloat again little
the worse and return under her own steam.
If a steamer strongly built of iron could survive a storm and stranding
which ended the careers of several wooden ships of larger dimensions,
it was admitted that there was no valid reason why other iron vessels
should not prove equally safe, especially if they were larger. It was
considered that iron steamers might find useful employment in short
voyages, and several were built.
One of the chief of these vessels was the _Rainbow_, launched in 1837
for the London and coastal trade. She was 185 feet long by 25 feet
beam, and of 600 tons, with engines of 180 horse-power.
The use of iron in construction was not the only factor in the
tremendous change which was coming in shipbuilding. A new form of
propulsion was necessary, and it was found in the screw propeller.
Before considering this, however, the development in the construction
of paddle-wheels and of the engines designed for paddle-boats may be
noticed.
The ordinary paddle-wheel had the floats fixed upon the radial arms,
but it was soon found that an improvement could be made by causing
the floats to assume a position vertical, or nearly so, at the moment
of contact with the surface of the water, and to retain that position
until the float had left the water. To effect this the floats are
not bolted to the arms but pivoted, and are retained in the required
position by means of levers operated by an eccentric pin. By this
means a much greater propulsive force was exerted. The old style of
paddle-wheel with fixed floats is now very seldom employed. These
wheels are now only to be found in vessels in which the expense of
construction has to be cut down to a minimum, or in a certain type of
steamer plying in shallow rivers, where the wheel is rather large, and
the dip of the float slight; but here again economy of construction may
count for more with the proprietor of the boat than the increased speed
he could obtain with the more expensive feathering wheels. Many of the
modern wheeled vessels have floats of steel, but in the great majority
of cases wood is employed, elm being largely used for this purpose.
The floats are usually about four times as long as they are broad.
Various forms are used, some being left square at the corners, others
are rounded, others again have the outer edge elliptical in shape,
and the experiment has also been tried with a fair measure of success
of inclining the floats to the axis of the wheel, instead of having
them parallel to it. The advantages claimed for this last method are
that the stream of water formed by the rotatory motion of the paddles
is driven slightly away from the sides of the vessel, instead of in
a direction parallel with her length. Wheels of this type, however,
lose much of their effectiveness when the engines are reversed. Radial
wheels are sometimes made with the floats adjusted so that they enter
the water almost perpendicularly, but they are much more oblique under
this arrangement when leaving the water.
A difficulty which paddle-vessels have to contend with is that of
securing a proper immersion of the floats. For a vessel in smooth water
the immersion of the top edge is usually calculated at about one-eighth
of the breadth of the float; but for a vessel intended for general
sea service, an immersion of not less than half the breadth of the
float is allowed, that is to say, the float at its moment of deepest
immersion has a height of water above it equal to half its diameter.
If the float goes much deeper the efficiency of the wheel becomes
impaired. This is a point which has to be taken into consideration in
designing paddle-boats, so that the maximum power shall be available
when the vessel is fully laden, and shall not be much lessened when the
vessel is running light. The earliest steamers suffered greatly in this
respect as their designers had not discovered the right size of wheels
or floats to suit the hulls. A loaded vessel consequently went very
slowly owing to the great depth to which her floats were immersed. To
overcome this difficulty an ingenious system of what can best be called
reefing was invented. Affixed to the axle of the wheel was a rod with
an arrangement of cogs at the end, and these fitted into a series of
teeth in rods affixed to the floats, so that it was a simple matter to
expand or contract the effective diameter of the wheel by altering the
position of the floats as required. The same result has sometimes been
obtained by a system of levers, but the toothed wheel business was the
older. It was tried on a few of the earlier boats on the Clyde, not
always, however, with success.
A peculiarity of some of the larger paddle-wheels in use in America
is that they are not only of much greater size than those in use in
Great Britain in proportion to the size of the boat, but they have a
proportionately less immersion and the wheel is constructed in a very
different fashion. The floats, instead of being of one piece, as here,
are constructed of three narrow fixed strips, two of which are on the
same radius but have a space between them equal to the breadth of the
third strip, which is placed a few inches behind the vacant space. It
is contended that this method disturbs the water less than the broad
float and increases the propelling efficiency. Probably the most
notable instance is the great wheel of the _Sprague_.
Referring now to the construction of the engines of the earliest boats,
Symington’s _Charlotte Dundas_ used a horizontal direct-acting engine,
and the general arrangement of her machinery would be considered
creditable even at the present day.[79] The engine of the _Savannah_
was of the inclined direct-acting type. The type of engine which
Newcomen invented has been retained for many years, but the oscillating
or walking beam which is such a conspicuous feature of nearly all the
American river craft has been placed by engineers in this country below
the crank axle instead of above. The type of engine with the beam below
the crank axle is known as the side lever. It is a type peculiarly
suitable to paddle-wheels, and this being the only method of propulsion
adopted on this side of the Atlantic for many years, there was little
change for a considerable period in the shape of the engines, which
therefore attained to a high stage of perfection until the limit of
their profitable employment was reached. When larger engines became
necessary, in consequence of the rapidly increasing size of vessels,
the great weight of the side-lever engines proved a serious drawback.
[79] Sennet and Oram’s “The Marine Steam-Engine,” 1898.
Engineers were not long in devising a more compact form of machinery,
and direct-acting engines were introduced, these involving the
abandonment of the use of the heavy side levers. As the side-lever
engines were made larger it became customary to use two beams, one on
each side, and a rod from one end of each of these connected with a
cross-piece at the top of the piston-rod. The other ends of the double
beam were united by a cross-piece which carried from its centre the rod
or lever which worked the crank of the paddle-shaft. Where it became
necessary to use two engines in one vessel, they were so arranged
that while one rod and crank were at their period of least activity,
the other pair were exerting their greatest effort. The system of
condensation of steam, which it would take too much space to describe
in detail, is also a matter of great importance in determining the
power of the engine, but the principle upon which the condensation is
effected is well known, and the various methods of condensation can
easily be ascertained from the numerous handbooks on engineering.
[Illustration: MAUDSLAY’S OSCILLATING ENGINE.]
Another early form of marine engine was that in which the side levers
were arranged as levers of the third order, the fulcrum being at one
end and the steam cylinder placed between it and the connecting-rod.
The peculiar motion thereby given to the machinery caused this type
to be known as the grasshopper engine, from a fancied resemblance to
the long legs of a grasshopper. The direct-acting engines were much
more compact, more powerful, and lighter than the old side levers.
The necessity of providing a connecting-rod of sufficient length
was met by Messrs. Maudslay by the provision of two cylinders. The
cross-head was not unlike the letter =[T]=, the foot of which passed
down between the cylinders, and the lower end of this was fitted with
a journal from which the connecting-rod extended to the crank in
the axle. A still further improvement was made when the oscillating
engines were invented, which form an even more compact and simple type.
Messrs. Maudslay fitted a pair of oscillating engines in 1828 into
the paddle-steamer _Endeavour_, and subsequently into several ships.
This form of engine was improved upon by Mr. John Penn, the famous
engineer at Blackwall, and the perfection which he gave it has not been
surpassed.
The great feature of this method is that the trunnions are hollow,
and the steam is admitted to and exhausted from the cylinders through
them. The connecting-rod is dispensed with and the upper end of the
piston-rod acts directly on the crank pin. This type of engine is the
most economical for space and weight that has yet been provided for
paddle-wheel engines, the majority of which of late years have been
made on this system.
Its adaptability for certain classes of work has given the paddle-wheel
a long lease of life. Paddles are peculiarly suitable for certain
conditions, such as smooth waters and shallow rivers, where speed and
light draught combined with considerable carrying power are essential.
The Indian rivers, for instance, early demanded suitable steamers,
and the paddle-steamers _Lord W. Bentinck_, _Thames_, _Megna_, and
_Jumna_ were built of iron in 1832 for the East India Company for
the navigation of the Ganges. They were designed and constructed by
Maudslay, Sons, and Field, and fitted with oscillating cylinder engines
of 30 nominal horse-power. They were flat-bottomed and were shipped to
India in pieces. They were 120 feet in length, 22 feet beam, and had a
draught of 2 feet. Their tonnage was 275, builders’ measurement.
The steamers sent to India, however, from over sea were not the only
ones in that country.
As far back as 1820 there was launched at Bombay the first steamer
built in India; she was intended for service on the River Indus. Her
engines were designed by a Parsee. She must have been a familiar object
to many hundreds of Anglo-Indians during her long career. She was only
broken up as recently as 1880, and her end came not through weakness
but through her supersession by more modern and commodious boats.
There is a custom peculiar to Bombay, and stated to be of Parsee
origin,[80] of driving a silver spike into the stern of a vessel at
its launch. This is said to be analogous to the placing of coins under
the foundation-stone. The ceremony was observed at the launching of
a paddle-steamer at Bombay in 1875, when a nail some seven inches in
length and three-quarters of an inch in diameter was used, but whether
such a ceremony took place at the launch in 1820 is not recorded. If
it is a Parsee ceremony, however, it is quite likely to have been
observed, for the East clings faithfully to its traditions.
[80] _Notes and Queries._
A paddle-wheel steamer built in 1859 for service on the Indus had a
draught of only 20 inches. The hull was a frameless cellular raft,
but the walls of the deck cabin were worked into the depth of the
vessel, which was thus made a girder 200 feet in length, and by this
contrivance the engine and boilers, weighing 150 tons, were supported.
A couple of plate girders having a run of 115 feet were included in
her middle length. These were 15 feet deep and formed the sides of the
cabins, and they also projected under the deck for a distance of 35
feet. The hull of the vessel was practically a long, flat, shallow box;
the stern was rounded and the keel was turned up about 2 feet to allow
of the water rising easily. The bow was rather fine and designed on
the wave-line principle. The engines were of 688 horse-power and the
boilers had a pressure of 25 lb. The paddle-wheels were 14¹⁄₄ feet in
diameter. Her load displacement was 331 tons and her draught when laden
was only 24 inches.
The _Ly-ee-moon_, launched in 1860 by the Thames Iron and Shipbuilding
Company, resembled in some respects the steam-yacht of the Queen. She
was built for Messrs. Dent and Co. for service between Hong-Kong and
Shanghai, and was 270 feet in length and 27 feet 3 inches beam with a
draught of 12 feet 6 inches. She was of 1003 tons register and 1394
tons displacement; her oscillating engines had cylinders of 70 inches
diameter, with a stroke of 5¹⁄₂ feet. She was the first merchant
vessel fitted with Lindsay’s apparatus for scaling the boilers with
superheated steam. The paddles were 22 feet diameter. She had two
masts, the foremast carrying lower yard, topsail yard and topgallant
yard, and the trysails reached to the topmast head and gave her a good
spread of canvas. She also carried several guns, and the sponsons were
so fitted that the guns could be worked on them in case of need. Her
speed was from 18 to 19 miles an hour. She afterwards passed into the
possession of the Japanese; the story goes that when she was making her
first run with Japanese only on board, the Japanese engineers, being
unable to stop the engines, put the helm hard over and sat down to wait
with true Oriental patience until the steam gave out and she stopped
of her own accord. The _Ly-ee-moon_ afterwards passed into Australian
ownership and she ran for a long time in the excursion and coastal
trade, and was finally wrecked in March 1886, when seventy persons lost
their lives.
The paddle-steamer _Leinster_ was one of four constructed of iron for
the mail service between Holyhead and Kingstown in 1860 by Samuda Bros.
She had nine water-tight bulkheads. A vessel intended for this service,
on which exceedingly rough weather is at times encountered, through
which the vessels are driven at full speed in order to ensure the
punctual delivery of the mails, has to be built very strongly to stand
the strain of the rough seas. For this purpose the paddle-boxes were
formed of iron plates internally, continued from the sides and bulwarks
of the vessel together with a strong girder extending from each bow.
Two of the four, the _Ulster_ and _Munster_, were withdrawn from the
service in 1896-7 and turned into barquentines, their places being
taken by larger vessels of the same names. The present bearers of the
names are twin-screws and have triple-expansion engines. The engines
of the former boats had each two oscillating cylinders, 98 inches in
diameter and having a stroke of 78 inches, situated immediately below
the paddle-shaft. They had each eight multitubular boilers bearing
steam at 20 lb. pressure, arranged in pairs, four before and four abaft
the engines, and with their ends backed to the sides of the vessel so
as to allow of the stoking of the furnaces from a middle gangway. The
paddle-wheels, 32 feet diameter, had fourteen floats 12 feet in length
by 5 feet in width. The indicated horse-power was 4751, and the average
speed in all weathers was 15¹⁄₂ knots.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE ENGINES OF THE “LEINSTER.”]
Messrs. Scott, Russell and Co. launched at Millwall in September 1854,
for a Sydney company, the steamer _Pacific_, which was expected to
prove one of the fastest vessels afloat. She was 270 feet in length
over all, breadth 82 feet, depth 34 feet, and tonnage 1200. She had
oscillating engines of 450 horse-power nominal and over 1000 effective,
four independent boilers, and her feathering paddle-wheels were of
exceptional strength. She was estimated to steam sixteen miles an hour.
[Illustration: THE “PACIFIC.”]
There was launched in the beginning of 1861 by Messrs. Pearse and
Co. of Stockton-on-Tees, for the conveyance of troops on the lower
Indus, a vessel which fulfilled the rather unusual requirements of
a Government Commission appointed to discover the best means of
navigating the Indian rivers which, though broad, are often shallow
in places, and abounding in sandbanks. This vessel was 377 feet over
all, beam 46 feet, breadth over paddle-boxes 74 feet, depth 5 feet,
with a displacement at 2 feet draught of 730 tons. Her tonnage was 3991
under the old system of measurement. Her engines, by Messrs. James Watt
and Co., were of 220 nominal horse-power, with horizontal cylinders
of 55 inches diameter and 6 feet stroke. The paddle-wheels were 26
feet in diameter. The hull was of steel strengthened longitudinally by
four arched girders, two of which carried the paddle-wheels, and the
other two extended nearly the full length of the ship. Other girders
strengthened her athwartships. She had no rudders in the ordinary
sense, but was steered at each end by blades, which were raised from or
lowered into the water at the required angle. The vessel had two tiers
of cabins, and could accommodate 800 troops and their officers.
The paddle-steamer _Athole_, built by Messrs. Barclay, Curle and Co.,
Ltd., in the year 1866, was the first steamer to be fitted with the
saloon above the upper deck. The credit for this improvement rests
entirely with the late Mr. John Ferguson, who was then manager of
the shipbuilding yard. So impressed were Lloyd’s that they desired
Mr. Ferguson to patent his improvement, but this he refused to do as
he considered it ought to be given to the shipbuilding world free of
royalty.
Messrs. A. and J. Inglis were the builders in 1882 of the steel
paddle-steamer _Ho-nam_, which has the distinction of being one of the
few, and probably the first, English-built vessels constructed on the
American plan. She was rigged as a two-master carrying fore and aft
sails only. Her paddles were placed very far aft, and she was fitted
with a walking beam-engine. She was constructed for the Chinese coastal
trade and was of 2364 tons gross register, and was so successful that
others of the same type followed.
These necessarily brief notices of some of the more remarkable
paddle-boats of modern times, together with references in other
chapters to paddle-steamers of still more recent years, are sufficient
to show that the earlier form of propulsion has never been entirely
superseded by the screw.
Possibly the earliest definite attempt to apply the screw for
propelling purposes was made by David Bushnell in his abortive
submarine exploit, an account of which appears in Chapter XII.
hereafter;[81] but the propeller seems to have been very primitive.
The screw propeller was also proposed in 1752 by the mathematician
Daniel Bernoulli. A patent was granted in 1794 to William Lyttleton
for a screw propeller which was caused to revolve by an endless rope
passing round a wheel at the end of the axle. It was a distinct attempt
to solve the problem and nearly succeeded, but it failed because there
was too much of it. Had he been contented to use one pair of blades
he would have obtained better results than by using two pairs of wide
blades and two odd blades, arranged with three blades on either side of
the axle so that his propeller became really a long spiral wheel. He
also failed from the lack of sufficient power to drive the wheel, as
manual labour only was used. Still, a boat fitted with this screw was
tried at the Greenwich Dock, London, and a speed of two miles an hour
was stated to have been obtained.
[81] See p. 376.
In 1800 Mr. Shorter, master of the transport _Doncaster_, brought out
two plans of propulsion. One was in the form of two duck-foot paddles
with an alternate movement; the other was a two-bladed screw propeller.
The latter was attached to an inclined shaft carried by a universal
joint to the deck of the vessel. One of these methods was said to have
moved the _Doncaster_ at a speed of about a mile and a half an hour,
the contrivance being driven by eight men running round a capstan. It
is difficult to believe from the picture which accompanies his plan,
dated 1800, that a transport of the size depicted could have been moved
at half that speed with the apparatus shown, although the fact that it
was mechanically propelled is attested by credible witnesses.
The first really successful screw-propelled boats were those of Colonel
John Stevens, which were in operation on the Hudson River from the
years 1802 to 1806, and were the first to be used for the effective
navigation of the waters of any country. References have already
been made to Stevens’ experiment with paddle propulsion in 1796. When
he, Chancellor Livingston, Nicholas J. Roosevelt, and Isambard Brunel
were making experiments in steam propulsion on the Passaic River, New
Jersey, they tried a horizontal centrifugal wheel in a boat of 30 tons,
drawing water from the bottom of the boat and discharging it at the
stern. This is in its general principles similar to the plan that Mr.
Ruthven tried in England on the _Waterwitch_ more than half a century
afterwards. They also, unsuccessfully, attempted to use elliptical
paddle-wheels.
Probably the best description of Colonel Stevens’ propeller is that
which he himself contributed to the _Medical and Philosophical Journal_
of New York in January 1812. He refers to the “mischievous effects
necessarily resulting from the alternating stroke of the engine of
the ordinary construction” which induced him to turn his attention to
the rotary principle of steam-engine construction. “For simplicity,
lightness, and compactness the engine far exceeded any I have yet seen.
A cylinder of brass, about eight inches in diameter and four inches
long, was placed horizontally on the bottom of the boat: and by the
alternate pressure of the steam on two sliding wings, an axis passing
through its centre was made to revolve. On one end of this axis, which
passed through the stern of the boat, wings like those on the arms of
a windmill were fixed, adjusted to the most advantageous angle for
operating on the water. This constituted the whole of the machinery.
Working with the elasticity of the steam merely, no condenser, no
air-pump was necessary; and as there were no valves, no apparatus was
required for opening and shutting them. This simple little steam-engine
was, in the summer of 1802, placed on board a flat-bottomed boat I
had built for the purpose. This boat was 25 feet long, and about 5 or
6 feet wide. She was occasionally kept going until the cold weather
stopped us. When the engine was in the best order, her velocity was
about four miles an hour. I found it, however, impracticable, on so
contracted a scale, to preserve due tightness in the packing of the
wings in the cylinder for any length of time. This defect determined me
to revert again to the reciprocating engine.”
[Illustration: STEVENS’ 1804 ENGINE, FITTED INTO OPEN BOAT WITH
TWIN-SCREW PROPELLERS.]
Stevens and his son were crossing the Hudson in this boat on one
occasion when the boiler, which was constructed of small tubes,
gave way, and the next boiler was constructed with the tubes placed
vertically. The engine was kept going for a fortnight or three weeks in
the latter part of the summer of 1804, the boat making excursions for
two or three miles up and down the river, and for a short distance he
could get a speed out of it of seven or eight miles an hour.
Stevens’ early experiments with the screw propeller taught him that a
vessel driven by only one screw has a tendency to move in a circle.
This tendency is displayed in single-screw vessels to the present
day. As is well known, a vessel driven by a right-handed screw will
deflect slightly to the left, and a vessel driven by a left-handed
screw will have a tendency to turn to the right. The explanation given
of this peculiarity in the Stevens’ boat by Dr. P. Jones, who was
superintendent of the United States Patent Office up to the date of its
reorganisation under the law of 1836, in the _Journal of the Franklin
Institute_ for 1838, is that this tendency was due to the lessened
resistance, as the vanes of the propeller rose towards the surface, in
consequence of the greater ease with which the water was removed out
of the way. Consequently Stevens overcame this difficulty by using two
such wheels placed side by side and revolving in reverse directions.
The original screw-engine is still in existence in the Museum of the
Stevens Institute at Hoboken, New Jersey. The original boat, of
course, has long since disappeared. A replica of it was tried with the
old engine on the Hudson in October 1844, and attained a speed of eight
miles an hour.
One great difficulty which early steamers had to contend with was that
of boiler pressure. It should be remembered that the five distinct
means Stevens proposed in connection with his screw propeller were:
1. The short four-bladed screw propeller.
2. The use of steam of high pressure.
3. The multitubular boiler.
4. The quick-moving engine connected directly to the propeller shaft.
5. Twin screws.
Not one of these means was applied to steam-ships until about forty
years later, but all have contributed since their adoption to the
success of the ocean navigation of the present day.
Stevens’ plan for working twin screws by a single cylinder is the most
simple that could be devised. When the screw propeller came into use
this plan was revived both in America and in Europe, and was known in
France as the “Etoile” engine.
The principal reason for Stevens’ failure with the screw propeller
was that there were no tools or competent workmen in America to
construct properly the steam-engines that he planned between 1800 and
1806, and success was therefore impossible. He therefore reverted to
the paddle-wheel with its slow-moving engine and the boilers then in
use, carrying steam at a pressure of two or three pounds above the
atmosphere. Stevens was not disposed to abandon the screw entirely,
for he presented a plan in 1816 to the United States Government for a
warship propelled by that means, but nothing came of it.
In the spring of 1825 an advertisement appeared in the _Times_ offering
a hundred guineas for a means of propelling vessels without paddles,
and in that year a company was formed for applying the gas vacuum
engine to canal navigation.
[Illustration: THE “Q.E.D.”]
Some of the earlier steam-engine-propelled iron vessels were strange
craft. Designers and builders felt that they were entering upon new
ground, and being less trammelled by tradition allowed their fancy free
play. Their plans were occasionally daring in their originality and
came astonishingly near to achieving success.
A freakish-looking vessel was launched on July 15, 1844, from the yard
of her owner and builder, Mr. Cootes, at Walker-on-Tyne. She was a
collier, built of iron, and carried a screw propeller driven by a small
engine. On this account she is said to have been the first iron screw
collier, antedating by some years the _John Bowes_, to which the honour
is usually given. This ship was confessedly an experiment and was
named the _Q.E.D._, and as her name was not changed during her career
she no doubt gave satisfaction. The sea-borne coal trade was largely
confined to wooden brigs of comparatively small tonnage. The _Q.E.D._
was barque-rigged, “with taut masts and square yards, the masts raking
aft in a manner that is seldom seen except in the waters of the United
States. She was provided with a 20-horse-power engine by Hawthorn,
which turned a propeller (screw), a compound of several inventions,
having four flies or flaps at right angles with each other, the bend of
each flap at an angle of 45 degrees from the centre.”
On her first voyage to London,[82] when she had about twenty keels of
coal on board, she grounded on the Gunfleet Sands, but was refloated
undamaged after some of her cargo had been thrown overboard.
[82] Mr. Charles Mitchell, afterwards head of the shipbuilding firm
which amalgamated with Sir W. G. Armstrong and Co. under the style of
Armstrong, Mitchell and Co., Ltd., went to sea in this vessel for one
or two voyages, to watch the behaviour of her engines.--“The Making
of the River Tyne,” by L. W. Johnson.
Constructionally she presented several very novel features, which
embodied the iron shipbuilding science of the time. Her over-all
length was 150 feet, beam 27 feet 6 inches, and with the 340 tons of
coal on board she was constructed to carry, she drew 11 feet 9 inches
aft and 10 feet 3 inches forward. She is said to have been the first
water-ballast vessel, for her hold was divided into separate chambers
and each chamber had a false floor, between which and the hull was the
space for water-ballast. The water, which was her only ballast, was
admitted through taps and was pumped out by her engine. This was just a
small steam auxiliary, capable of giving her a speed of four knots in a
calm. Her mizzen-mast was of iron and hollow and was used as a funnel
for the engine fires, so that when her furnace was going her mizzen
rigging appeared to be on fire. Her bows had a sharp wedge-shape
with considerable sheer, her stern overhung to an unusual degree, and
her counters were very flat so as to lift her stern to the sea. The
stern bore an armorial bearing with the motto “Spes mea Christus,” and
“_Q.E.D_ of Newcastle.” The cabin was commodious, with a raised roof
surrounded with window lights, and had four sleeping compartments,
with a stateroom for the captain. A swinging compass was suspended,
having a magnet on each side, and one before it, to counteract the
attraction of the iron. Her shrouds were of wire rope served over with
a strong double screw to each, a method in use to the present time. The
main-mast from step to cap was 65 feet, the main yard 52 feet, and the
mast, from the keel to the royal truck, was 130 feet.
As she steered with ease, sailed well, and exceeded expectations with
the screw propeller, confidence was expressed “that the time is not
far distant when our ships of the line will be fitted with engines
and screws in a somewhat similar manner.” Four years after her launch
her engines were removed and she was rigged as a barquentine. She
ultimately went to the bottom of the English Channel in 1856.
As a steam collier the _Q.E.D._ can scarcely have been a success or
her engines would not have been taken out of her. Probably the first
real steamer to which the title can be applied was the _John Bowes_,
built at Messrs. Palmer’s yard, formerly in the possession of Mr.
Cootes. Messrs. Palmer Brothers and Co. established the fifth yard on
the Tyne for iron shipbuilding purposes and the _John Bowes_ was their
first vessel. Two steam colliers of a sort had already been built on
the Mersey, but they were little better than steam barges. This, the
first seagoing steam collier with a screw propeller, was 167 feet over
all, 25 feet 7 inches beam, 15 feet 6 inches depth, and of 270 tons
register. The firm started in 1851, and about this period the working
of the new Midland coalfields began seriously to affect the sale of
north country coal, which had hitherto been conveyed to London in small
collier brigs. It now became imperative in the interests of colliery
owners to devise some means by which the staple produce of the district
could be conveyed to the metropolis expeditiously and regularly.
Sir (then Mr.) Charles Palmer, who was connected with several large
collieries in Northumberland and Durham, therefore designed the
_John Bowes_ with a carrying capacity of 650 tons, and capable of
steaming nine miles an hour. She was launched on June 30, 1852. The
experiment proved a complete success, and to it may be attributed the
important development of iron shipbuilding on the north-east coast
which afterwards took place. The _John Bowes_ was the forerunner of a
long list of screw colliers, and was speedily followed by the _William
Hutt_, the _Countess of Strathmore_, and numerous vessels of a similar
type.
Captain Blackett, R.N., speaking at the launch of the _John Bowes_,
expressed the opinion that paddle-wheel ships were doomed altogether.
The chairman, Mr. Charles M. Palmer, referred to the superiority of
the vessel over the sailing brigs, and added: “The application of
iron to shipbuilding, especially to colliers, gives great advantages.
There being much more space than is required for cargo, the surplus in
the _John Bowes_ is available for water-ballast, by placing an inner
bottom, with compartments, thus saving much detention and expense, the
water being pumped out by the engine used for the screw propeller.
When this description of collier is brought into general use, and the
coal merchants can be supplied with regularity, and, moreover, cannot
take advantage of the fleets, they will no doubt purchase from the
coalowners at a price on board in the north, and thus obviate the
ruinous speculations now existing, and present the most effectual mode
of regulating the trade. I am aware that in substituting iron screw
steamers for wooden sailing vessels we are running counter to the
wishes of many shipowners, but I am satisfied we are taking the right
course; we have the public with us: and I am confident of success.” His
confidence is justified by the history of the Tyne.
[Illustration: THE “JOHN BOWES.” LAUNCHED 1852.]
[Illustration: THE “JOHN BOWES,” 1906
(PASSING PALMER’S SHIPYARD, WHERE SHE WAS LAUNCHED, 1852.)]
Numerous attempts were made to solve the problem of the proper
application of the screw propeller. Most of them were fantastic and a
few were even absurd. The difficulties that inventors had to surmount
were so great that it is no wonder many gave up the struggle in
despair, notwithstanding the obvious advantages of this method. They
had to decide where the propeller should be placed so as to give the
best results, without interfering with the steering powers of the
rudder. They had to ascertain the best material for the bearings of the
propeller shaft in order to avoid the wearing away or the overheating
of the shaft and bearings through the friction caused by its
revolutions; for worn bearings meant leakage and excessive vibration,
and the latter meant an ever-increasing strain on the structure of the
ship, this being particularly the case with wooden vessels.
By degrees these obstacles were overcome, but the questions of the
number, size, and shape of the blades, their pitch, or theoretical
forward movement in making a complete turn, their degree of immersion
and their most efficacious speed, are taxing the brains of the most
skilled naval engineers and architects of the present day. Obviously,
these questions are of the highest importance to all students of
marine engineering no less than to steam-ship owners. As the power of
the engines increased other considerations had to receive attention,
including the best material for the construction of the propeller
and the best methods of building or casting it to stand the enormous
strains imposed upon it by the work it had to perform.
Almost simultaneously John Ericsson, the famous Swedish inventor, and
Francis Pettit Smith, a Middlesex farmer, were engaged in experiments.
Mr. (afterwards Sir) F. P. Smith made, in 1836, a clockwork model of
a boat with a screw propeller, and it was so successful that he built
a steam launch in order to try the experiment on a larger scale. This
boat, the _F. P. Smith_, was about 29 feet long and 5 feet 9 inches
beam, and was tried in the Paddington Canal in 1837; its power was
derived from a steam-engine with a cylinder having a diameter of 6
inches and a stroke of 15 inches. The propeller was of wood with two
full turns, and was placed some distance in front of the sternpost,
where it was driven by a system of bevel wheels from the engine to
the shaft. The propeller lost a blade on one of its trips, thereby
adding to the speed of the vessel, and this led Mr. Smith to instal
another screw with one turn only, or a half-turn on each blade. A metal
propeller was afterwards substituted, and the boat went from London to
Folkestone and other places on the coast at an average speed of five to
five and a half knots.
It is stated Mr. Smith built a vessel of 60 tons[83] which, with a
screw propeller, attained a speed of seven or eight miles an hour and
went from Blackwall to Margate in eight and a half hours, and that
she also towed the _British Queen_ steamer into the West India Dock.
This probably refers to the _F. P. Smith_, the assertion that she
was of 60 tons being erroneous. The results of the experiment were
so satisfactory that a syndicate was formed which took the matter up
and brought out the Ship Propeller Company, to whose capital Messrs.
Rennie, the shipbuilders, subscribed £2000.
[83] _Historic Times_, March 1849.
This syndicate built the steam-ship _Archimedes_, the first seagoing
vessel driven by a screw propeller. She was of 232 tons, and had
engines of 80 horse-power. The cylinders were 37 inches in diameter
and of 3 feet stroke, and the screw, being geared in the proportion of
a fraction over five to one, made 140 revolutions per minute to about
27 revolutions of the engine shaft. The screw was formed of plates of
iron fastened to arms of wrought iron, keyed upon a wrought-iron shaft.
The boiler was suited to the shape of the vessel. The engines, chimney,
boiler, coal-boxes, driving machinery, and propeller weighed altogether
rather more than 64 tons. The propeller was fitted in such a way that
it could be brought on deck for repair or when not required for use.
The ship was 125 feet over all and 22¹⁄₂ feet beam. Various types of
propeller blades were tried with her, and she was also sent on a voyage
round the ports of Great Britain to demonstrate the effectiveness of
this method of propulsion. On this trip she called at Bristol, where
the _Great Britain_ was under construction, and was thus the cause of
the screw propeller being adopted for that ship.
One of the tests to which the _Archimedes_ was subjected was a
voyage between Dover and Calais in the company of two of the Post
Office packets, which she beat handsomely. She went from London to
Portsmouth in 1839, and continuing her voyage round the ports of the
British Islands, to provide ocular proof to all interested, put in at
Plymouth, where she was boarded by Admiral Sir Grayham Moore and the
Commander-in-Chief, who were then convinced of the usefulness of the
screw.
The next year the _Novelty_ was built for the owners of the
_Archimedes_ by Mr. Wimshurst at Blackwall, to demonstrate still
further the seagoing merits of a screw-propelled vessel. Her two-bladed
screw was placed as near the sternpost as possible, and one of its
features was that it had only a quarter of a turn to the blade. Her
boilers worked at a steam pressure of sixty pounds above that of the
atmosphere, the highest then attempted, and up to then regarded as
impossible for a steamer. She took a general cargo to Constantinople,
to which port she was the first screw cargo boat to go; but as on her
return objections were raised that the pressure was too high, other
engines were substituted working at only a quarter of the pressure.
She was one of the few vessels in which the mast was used as a funnel,
her mizzen-mast being made hollow and of iron for the purpose: she is
also said to have been the first vessel to be fitted with an iron mast.
John Ericsson in 1836 patented a propeller consisting of two drums
from which projected seven helical blades connected by an external
hoop. The blades were inclined in opposite directions, thus forming a
double screw propeller, the propellers being placed immediately behind
the rudder, which had the usual “shark’s mouth” to allow of steering.
The shafts were made so that one passed through the other, the outer
one being tubular. The drums revolved in opposite directions, that
nearer the sternpost moving at a slightly faster rate than the after
drum. This method of arranging the propellers was adopted with a view
to avoiding the loss caused by the motion imparted to the water by
the single screw, but it was found that the trouble caused by the
contrivance was not worth the results obtained. Another drawback was
that the extra friction induced by one shaft operating within the
other was so great that the contrivance was practically useless where
a high speed was desired. The steamer _Francis B. Ogden_ was tried
with this type of propeller in 1837, and towed the American sailing
ship _Toronto_, of 630 tons burden, on the Thames at the rate of five
miles an hour. The _Francis B. Ogden_ was about double the tonnage and
power of Smith’s boat, being 45 feet long and having a high-pressure
two-cylinder engine giving the propellers about 30 revolutions per
minute. Ericsson’s next experiment was with the _Robert F. Stockton_,
which was built by Laird at Birkenhead in 1838. She was 63 feet long
and of 33 tons, and had engines of 30 horse-power. Prior to this his
screw boat towed the Admiralty barge with my Lords of the Admiralty
on board on the Thames, but the effort to convince them of the
practicability of the method was doomed to failure, since they had
previously decided that as the power was applied at the stern the
vessel would not steer.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE “NOVELTY.” BUILT 1839.]
The _Robert F. Stockton_ crossed the Atlantic under canvas in 1839,
and after one of the screws had been removed as useless, she was
employed for a quarter of a century as a single-screw tugboat on the
Delaware, under the name of the _New Jersey_. Commodore Robert F.
Stockton in that year induced Ericsson to resign his office in London
as superintending engineer of the Eastern Counties Railway and go to
the United States. Several vessels were fitted with his propellers for
river and inland waters navigation in America.
Mr. Ogden, who was American Consul at Liverpool from 1829 to 1840, and
at Bristol from 1840 to 1857, “is credited with having first applied
the important principles of the expansive power of steam and with
the employment of right-angular cranks in marine engines. In 1813 he
received a patent for low-pressure engines with two cylinders, working
expansively, and the cranks being adjusted at right angles, and in
1817 the first engine ever constructed on this principle was built
by him in Leeds, Yorkshire. He submitted his plan to James Watt, at
Soho, who declared at once that it was a beautiful engine and that the
combination was certainly original.”[84]
[84] Appleton’s “Cyclopædia of American Biography.”
The definite adoption of the screw propeller, both for the Royal Navy
and the Mercantile Marine, may be said to have taken place in 1840-41.
For some years no bearings of brass or other metal could be got to
stand the strain of the stern shaft, “and at one moment it seemed as
if the screw must be abandoned and the paddle-wheel reverted to. Mr.
Penn solved the problem by using lignum-vitæ wood bearings, which,
lubricated by water, were found to act without any appreciable wear,
and in this simple way the screw has already been able to reach a
point of development from which we can now calmly look back upon
the financial risks and terrors which beset the early days of steam
navigation.”[85]
[85] _The Times._
The difficulty of steering screw-propelled vessels was considerable,
principally owing to the method of placing the screw in an aperture
in the deadwood, while at the same time retaining the full underbody
aft. The full power of the screw could not thus be exerted, and the
attendant churning of the water interfered with the steering power of
the rudder. A system of double rudders was brought out in an attempt to
solve the difficulty, but the disadvantages it possessed were against
its general adoption. These rudders were hung respectively one on each
side of the forepart of a somewhat extended sternpost, against which
they lay when amidships, moving out as required to steer the ship, or
both could be moved outwards to help to stop her. The sternpost was
really a vertical hollow box through which the screw framing passed,
the screw working behind it and beyond the rudders. Later improvements
in shipbuilding rendered this device unnecessary.
The difficulty was solved by the simple expedient of placing the
sternpost farther aft so as to give room for a greater space in the
deadwood in which the propeller was to act.
The superiority of the screw to paddles was now being gradually
admitted, and the number of small vessels fitted with screws increased.
But no one had as yet dared to launch a large screw steamer for ocean
voyages.
The honour of being the first to do this was gained by the Great
Western Steamship Company. The _Great Western_, which has been
mentioned in Chapter V, had been so successful that her owners felt
justified not only in ordering another vessel but in determining
that their new steamer should be the largest afloat and illustrate
the latest theories of construction. There were already rumours
of competition in the North Atlantic trade, and the Great Western
directors did not intend to be forestalled. They decided to build an
iron ship and it was accordingly announced that the _Great Western_
was to be followed by the _Great Britain_, of iron. This project was
roundly condemned by the public. The fact that iron steamers were
already in existence on Irish waters did not count for much. These
might be good enough for Irish lakes and rivers but would be unfit for
the Atlantic Ocean. The _Garry Owen_ was already forgotten.
The Great Western Company, however, persisted. The _Great Britain_ was
designed by the younger Brunel and launched in 1843. Her length of keel
was 289 feet, and length from figure-head to taffrail 320 feet. Her
beam was 51 feet. The total depth from the under side of the upper deck
to the keel was 31 feet 4 inches. Her tonnage was 3500 tons and her
displacement at 16 feet was 2000 tons. Her cargo capacity was 1200 tons
measurement, and her coal bunkers held 1000 tons. Since no shipbuilder
had the necessary data for the construction of such a vessel, and
shipbuilders as a whole were by no means favourably disposed towards
iron ships, possibly because they had not the plant necessary for
their construction, and as there was also a very widespread belief
that a vessel of the size and dimensions of the _Great Britain_ could
not be built of iron, the directors were unable to find a contractor
who would undertake her construction. They were therefore obliged to
instal the plant for building the ship and the engines also. She was
built under the supervision of Paterson of Bristol, who was responsible
for the _Great Western_. It was at first intended that the _Great
Britain_ should be a paddle-steamer and her lines followed in several
respects those of the best paddle-steamers of the day; though the
_Great Britain_ herself contained so many novel features and was of so
experimental a character that it could hardly be said that she followed
anything.
Little had been done to demonstrate the power of the screw propeller,
which for some unfathomable reason was considered to be suitable only
for small vessels. However, after the construction of the _Great
Britain_ had been commenced, the steamer _Archimedes_, fitted with
Smith’s screw propeller, arrived at Bristol during her tour of the
ports and demonstrated once and for all that the screw propeller could
be used in seagoing vessels, and that, provided engines of sufficient
power were installed, the screw propeller was more suitable for large
hulls built to make ocean voyages than the best paddle-wheels then
designed. But many years were to elapse before the shipping industry
generally accepted this view.
The advantages of the screw, as proved by the _Archimedes_, were not,
however, lost upon the enterprising directors of the Great Western
Steamship Company, and they did not hesitate to order the designs of
the _Great Britain_ to be altered so that she could be fitted with a
screw instead of paddles. She was not built on a slip whence she might
have been launched into the river, but in an excavated dock, and when
she was afloat in the dock it was found that she was too big to be got
out of it. That is to say, that having been fitted with her engines
while still in dock, their weight immersed her to such an extent that
she could not float out. This was owing to the dock officials’ delay in
finishing alterations to the dock entrance, and not to any mistake or
negligence on the part of the steamer officials. She was water-borne
on July 19, 1843, and was christened by Prince Albert. The floating
was attended by vexatious mishaps. The _Great Britain_ was attached
by a hawser to the tug _Avon_, which was outside the dock, but at the
critical moment the hawser broke. The bottle of wine thrown at the
ship by the Prince fell several feet short. He threw another bottle of
champagne, which struck the bows, and the wine and broken glass fell
upon the men below, who were pushing against her sides to keep her off
the dock walls.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”]
Her figure-head consisted of the royal arms, flanked with a beehive,
two cog-wheels, a dove, square, and the caduceus of Mercury in bronze
on a white ground, with a scroll above and below. Her anchor was on
Porter’s newly invented patent, which had been satisfactorily tested in
the Navy for three years.
Her designer and builder took no chances. She was put together as
strongly as possible, and it was well that this was so, for in her
eventful career she was altered so frequently and so much that had she
not been excellently put together she would very soon have succumbed
to ship surgery. Her keel was formed of iron plates varying from
three-quarters of an inch thick in the middle to one inch at the ends.
The plates of the hull under water were from three-eighths to half an
inch at the top, except the upper plate, which was five-eighths of an
inch. She was clincker-built and double riveted throughout. Towards the
bow and stern and in the upper strakes the thicknesses were reduced
gradually to seven-sixteenths. The ribs were of angle iron six inches
by three and a half, by half an inch thick at the bottom of the vessel
and seven-sixteenths thick at the top. The boiler platform was of plate
iron supported upon ten iron keelsons. The hull was divided into five
compartments by water-tight iron bulkheads. The decks were of wood and
consisted of the cargo deck, two cabin decks, and the upper deck.
The beams for the support of the decks were bars of angle iron about
three inches across with an additional bar measuring five inches by
half an inch riveted on the side. The beams were from 2 feet 4 inches
to 3 feet apart. There were also between the angle-iron bars and deck
planks a series of diagonal flat tension bars, forming a continuous
horizontal truss from end to end in each principal deck; these bars
were riveted to the angle irons at the crossings and at the ends in
order to prevent horizontal straining. The engine-room was strengthened
by adding nine additional double ribs and sixteen additional reverse
ribs riveted to the original framing. Her three boilers were each 33
feet in length, 10 feet wide, and 24 feet high; she had 24 fires, 12
fore and 12 aft, with a total surface of fire-box of 288 superficial
feet. Her chimney was 8 feet in diameter and about 45 feet high; her
four cylinders were 7 feet 4 inches diameter with a piston-stroke of
6 feet. Her two condensers of wrought iron three-quarters of an inch
thick were 12 feet in length. The main wrought-iron shaft measured 15
feet 9 inches.
The engines were after Sir Mark Brunel’s patent in the position of
the cylinders, except that they were disposed at an angle of about 60
degrees. The pitch of the screw was 13 feet 2 inches and its diameter
15 feet. It was six-bladed, and the screw shaft was revolved by four
endless chains.
The crew numbered one hundred and thirty all told and she could
accommodate three hundred and sixty passengers. Her principal promenade
saloon was 110 feet in length by 48 feet at the widest part and 7 feet
high, and had two staircases at each end. Her first-class dining-room
was 100 feet in length by 50 feet wide and 8 feet high, with staircases
communicating with those of the promenade saloon. Seeing how far she
excelled all other steam-ships, she well merited being called by the
newspapers a “stupendous steam-ship” of “unparalleled vastness.”
[Illustration: MODEL OF ENGINES OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”]
Her rig was as unique as her hull. She had six masts, of which only the
second carried square sails, all the others being fore and aft rigged,
and her one funnel was placed between the second and third masts. Five
of her masts were stepped on turntables on deck so that they could be
lowered and offer less resistance when going against a head wind. The
lines of the ship were very fine, especially about the entrance from
the forefoot. There was little of the “cod’s head and mackerel tail”
style of build about her. She was admitted to be rather full amidships,
for the accommodation of the engine, but was thought to approach as
near the figure of least resistance as possible. The hull had a slight
sheer and the vessel realised the expectation that she would be what
sailors call “a dry ship.”
After getting out of the dock at last she left for London, where
she arrived in January 1845 after a stormy voyage which tested her
thoroughly. She remained five months at Blackwall, being visited
by the Queen and Prince Albert, and left in June of that year with
about eighty passengers for Liverpool, calling at a number of ports
_en route_. She left the Mersey for New York on July 26 with from
forty-five to sixty passengers (accounts differ) and about 600 tons of
cargo. The voyage lasted 14 days 21 hours, and her average speed was
nine and a half knots, but the engines were only worked at about 600
horse-power. New York was disappointed with her, as her six low masts
contrasted unfavourably with the tall graceful masts of the American
ships. She made the return journey in a day less.
On a subsequent voyage she broke one of the blades of her propeller,
but as she made between ten and eleven knots, using both propeller
and sail, it was decided when she was docked for repairs that her new
propeller should have four blades only. In September 1846 she ran on
the rocks in Dundrum Bay on the coast of Ireland, and was not refloated
until August 1847. Thanks to her strong construction she was able to
withstand a winter’s storms and a stranding of eleven months.
After being brought to Liverpool, she lay for some time at the North
Docks and, as the Great Western Steamship Company thought the repairs
would be too costly, she was purchased by Messrs. Gibbs, Bright and
Co., formerly agents for the company, and they decided to refit her.
The rolling plates attached to the sides of the hull were removed. An
oak keel was bolted through upon the iron plates which had done duty
for a keel when she was first built, to prevent rolling. Her bottom
for about 150 feet had to be entirely renewed. The bows and stern were
strengthened by double angle-iron framing secured by three tiers of
iron stringers 2 feet 3 inches wide and five-eighths of an inch thick.
Ten new keelsons were placed in the ship running her entire length,
half as deep again as those formerly used. The various alterations
resulted in the cargo capacity being increased by about 1000 tons,
partly through the space saved by new boilers and partly through the
construction of a deck-house 300 feet long and 7 feet 6 inches high.
New bulwarks were erected higher than the previous ones. The number
of masts was now reduced to four.[86] Two of the lower masts were
iron cylinders and the two centre masts were ship-rigged, carrying
royals. The fore and jigger were fore and aft rigged, but whereas the
topsail of the foremast was shaped like a lugsail that of the jigger
was carried on a gaff, according to a contemporary picture. The old
engines were of 1000 nominal horse-power, but it is a question if they
ever worked over 600 horse-power; the new engines were nominally 500
horse-power. Her new pair of oscillating engines were by John Penn and
Son, engineers, Greenwich, and had cylinders 82¹⁄₂ inches diameter and
6 feet stroke. By the use of cog-wheels the screw shaft made three
revolutions to one of the engine.
[86] According to a description and picture in the _Illustrated
London News_ she had five masts, the first, fourth, and fifth
masts being fore and aft rigged, but the fifth mast is probably an
incorrect addition to the picture. If she had five masts the number
must soon have been reduced.
The screw was three-bladed, 15 feet 6 inches diameter, and 19 feet
pitch. There were six boilers, and her bunkers held 700 tons, and
other accommodation enabled her to stow 510 tons more. To lessen
the vibration experienced from the screw and machinery, eight new
wrought-iron beams were placed transversely through the vessel, locking
her sides together. The bases on which the machinery rested were made
stronger, and she was further strengthened by massive iron entablature
beams to the engines, buttressed by a framing of teak wood, each piece
being 20 inches wide and 3 feet deep, running on either side of the
engines transversely and diagonally to the sides of the ship. This
solid timber extended 17 feet 6 inches on each side of the engine. The
whole of this framing was bolted together and to the sides of the ship
by wrought-iron bolts. The new arrangement of the boilers gave her a
lessened coal consumption.
Little more need be said about this steamer. She made one voyage
afterwards to New York and back, and being then acquired by Messrs.
Antony Gibbs and Sons was placed in the Australian trade at the time
of the gold fever, and continued a regular voyage between England and
Australia for many years. She was afterwards patched up afresh and had
her engines removed, but was then such a failure that though she got as
far as the Falkland Islands, leaking badly, she was abandoned to the
underwriters, and is now ingloriously ending her days as a coal hulk.
CHAPTER IX
DEVELOPMENT OF IRON SHIPBUILDING
After the launching of the _Great Britain_ in 1845, steam-ship building
was carried on with great activity, though the change from wood to
iron and from paddles to the screw was gradual. Many wooden vessels,
both steamers and sailers, continued to be built, as the prejudice
against iron for ship construction died slowly. The screw propellers
were at first simply auxiliary to sail. This was due to three causes:
mistrust of the propeller, the cost of continually running it, and the
difficulty of carrying sufficient coal.
Describing the gradual evolution of the steam-ship in its early days,
Mr. John Ward, a director in Messrs. Denny’s famous firm, in his
Presidential Address to the Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders
in Scotland, in 1907, said:
“The necessities of the screw propeller after its general adoption
demanded a much greater increase of engine revolution than constructors
in the early days, or for some years after, deemed it prudent to adopt.
Thus a great variety of design, including beam, steeple, oscillating,
and other forms of machines were used, all with gearing between the
engine and the propeller. But a few direct-acting engines appeared
very early, and gradually, as engineers gained confidence, the latter
type became universal, and assumed the form of the inverted cylinder
in the so-called steam-hammer engine which was the universal type for
mercantile purposes until the end of the century.
“John Elder we may look upon as the father of multiple-expansion
engines. He, together with his partner Charles Randolph, was trained
in the marine school of Mr. Robert Napier, Vulcan Foundry, Glasgow.
In 1852 they commenced business, and by 1856 had constructed several
four-cylinder compound engines. Randolph, Elder and Co. entered into
a contract for a set of engines, the coal for which, on trial, would
not exceed 3 lb. per indicated horse-power per hour. The trial ...
worked out at 2¹⁹⁄₂₀ lb.” In regard to coal consumption, the Pacific
Steam Navigation Company’s boats _Callao_, _Lima_, and _Bogota_, after
being brought home from the Pacific coast to be re-engined, all showed
a consumption of from 2 to 2¹⁄₂ lb. (per indicated horse-power) of
best Welsh coal. The _Bogota’s_ speed with the old engines was 9·75
knots and the coal consumption not less than 38 cwts. per hour. On her
outward voyage with new engines she “gave a mean speed of 10·47 knots
with 19 cwts. of coal per hour.” The steam-pressure was 22 lb. and the
horse-power was about 950 indicated.
“These early fathers seemed to see into the future. Walter N. Neilson,
in his Presidential Address (1859), refers to the ‘three grand
requirements (of marine engines) as--a safe and suitable boiler for 100
lb. and upwards; a good arrangement of engine to receive the initial
force of the steam without shock or liability to derangement, and
carry out expansion to the greatest practical limits; and, lastly, an
efficient surface condenser.
“John Elder was among the first to adopt the surface condenser and the
cylindrical boiler, and he thus in the ’fifties brought to a successful
issue these three grand requirements. We must go back to these early
days to realise what it meant to make a boiler which would be safe
for 100 lb.; steel plates of the present day weighing tons were then
represented by puddled iron plates weighing hundredweights. This led
John Elder to try a water-tube boiler, practically the modern Yarrow
boiler, also a spiral tube boiler, but probably none of these was
successful owing to the salt-water difficulty, evaporators not being
introduced till many years afterwards.”
As the adaptability of iron for constructional purposes became more
generally recognised, it led to the proposal that steamers should
be built on the longitudinal principle instead of with an ordinary
keel and a series of transverse ribs. The use of iron also enabled
shipbuilders to increase the safety of their vessels considerably by
means of transverse bulkheads, the number of these being increased
until, even as early as 1838, the iron steamers then being built for
the Glasgow and Liverpool line were each divided into five sections,
any three of which were estimated to be sufficient to keep the steamer
afloat if the other two should become waterlogged through collision.
Several vessels were constructed on modifications of the longitudinal
system, the chief among them being the _Great Eastern_. In 1853 James
Hodgson of Liverpool issued a circular on the advantages of iron
sailing ships, in which he pointed out not only the greater strength
obtained by using iron but the comparative cheapness of construction.
The circular stated that a wooden ship of 1000 tons would cost £16
10_s._ per ton, and an iron ship £13 10_s._ per ton, both fitted for
trade to the East. The wooden ship would not carry more than 1500 tons,
whereas an iron ship built from the same external lines would carry
1800 tons, and this difference at £5 per ton out and home, added to
allowances for insurance, depreciation, and interest, would make a
difference in favour of the iron ship of £2295.
[Illustration: THE “SARAH SANDS,” 1846.]
What was true of sailing ships was equally true of steamers, and
Hodgson had shown this some years before the publication of his
circular, when he built the _Sarah Sands_.
The _Sarah Sands_ afforded an excellent example of the strength of iron
ships if well and substantially built. She grounded on the Woodside
Bank in the Mersey when carrying 1000 tons dead weight, and remained
high and dry until the tide flowed again, during which time she did
not sustain the slightest damage. She experienced several mishaps at
one time and another, which demonstrated not only the superior manner
in which she was put together, but also the superiority of iron ships
over wooden ones, for it is difficult to suppose that a wooden vessel
would have withstood all these casualties without sustaining serious
damage. The _Sarah Sands_ was built in 1846 at Liverpool; she was 182
feet between perpendiculars, 33 feet beam, 32 feet deep, and of 1400
gross tonnage. Her engines were of 300 indicated horse-power and were
built by Messrs. Bury, Curtice, and Kennedy of Liverpool. She had two
oscillating cylinders of 50 inches diameter and a stroke of 3 feet,
working upwards to the crank shaft, and a still greater novelty was
the application of a direct coupling between the crank shaft and the
screw shaft. Her boilers were of the wet-bottomed type, and had six
furnaces besides return tubes, the steam pressure being 9 lb. She was
four-masted and heavily canvassed, carrying courses, topsails, and
topgallant sails on the main and mizzen masts, while she was fore and
aft rigged, including topsails, on the fore and jigger masts; her head
sails included a large fore staysail and two immense jibs.
She made her first voyage from Liverpool to New York in January 1847,
in connection with the Red Cross Line, and remained in this service
until the end of 1849, when she was transferred to the American coastal
route between Panama and San Francisco, being probably the first
iron screw vessel to go round South America. The discovery of gold in
Australia caused her to be sent to Sydney with a crowded passenger list
of gold-seekers, and she was thus the first iron screw steamer to cross
the Pacific to Australia; she afterwards came back to Liverpool and
was again placed on the New York trade, and in 1854 was sent to Canada
and was the first iron screw steamer in that trade also. On her return
passage she struck the rocks in the St. Lawrence, near Belle Isle, and
remained fast four days and nights. When she returned to Liverpool it
was found that she had not started so much as a rivet, which says a
good deal for the strength of her construction. This was destined to
have another unnecessary proof, for as she left the graving dock she
capsized owing to her ballast having been removed and not replaced, but
again she was none the worse. Next she was employed as a transport for
troops to India in 1857, and caught fire in her saloon, but as the hull
was of iron the fire was subdued and she put into Mauritius with the
whole after-part burnt out. This ended her career as a steamer, for she
returned to England under sail and was converted into a sailing ship,
and in the following year met with a disaster which even her tough
frame could not withstand; she struck on the rocks near Bombay and went
to pieces.
In 1850 several boats were designed for mail service in any weather for
a run not exceeding sixty miles and on which sleeping accommodation
was not required. One of the best of the type was _Her Majesty_, built
and engined by Robinson and Russell in 1850 for the Portsmouth and
Ryde station. She was an iron paddle-steamer. The engines had two
oscillating cylinders 27 inches in diameter with 30 inches stroke, and
made 58 revolutions per minute. Her tubular boiler, 9·75 feet long,
11·25 feet wide, and 6 feet high, developed steam at 20 lb. pressure.
The heating surface was 1234 square feet. Engines, boilers, and water
weighed 30·5 tons. The paddles were 11·16 feet in diameter and each
had nine fixed floats. There were three masts and the sail area was 64
square yards. Her speed was 12·8 knots; displacement, 93 tons; length,
127 feet; extreme beam, 26 feet.
The steamer _Crœsus_, for the Australian trade, launched at Mare’s
yard, Blackwall, in June 1853, for the General Screw Shipping Company,
was the largest vessel yet built for the firm. She was of 2500 tons,
with engines by Messrs. G. and J. Rennie, of 400 horse-power.
Messrs. Maudslay, like Messrs. Penn and other eminent engineers, had
been in the habit of having the ships for which they contracted built
by other firms, while they themselves supplied the engines. They
decided to do their own shipbuilding, and accordingly opened a yard at
East Greenwich. The first vessel launched there was the _Lady Derby_,
of 530 tons gross, built for the General Iron Screw-Collier Company.
Those were the days when Thames shipbuilding was at its zenith.
While trade was good, freights high, and shipowning was profitable,
shipowners did not mind paying high prices for their vessels; but as
the north-east coast, the Mersey, and the east and west coasts of
Scotland developed their iron shipbuilding facilities, and by reason of
their proximity to the coal and iron fields were able to obtain these
commodities at lower prices than the Thames shipbuilders could secure
them, they were able to underbid the Thames shipbuilders and secure
the industry, with the result that there is now but one shipbuilding
establishment of importance in the Thames equipped to turn out a large
warship or liner. Its competitors and neighbours of half a century
ago vanished one after another. Some have passed out of existence,
others have become merely repairing yards, and two or three have gone
elsewhere and prospered. The one survivor is the Thames Iron Works
and Shipbuilding Company, which, on the site made historic by Mr.
Penn’s enterprise, proudly endeavours to hold its own and maintain the
traditions of the river.
Mare’s shipbuilding yards on the shores of Bow Creek, near its entrance
to the Thames, started in a very small way, but within seventeen years
it extended until it was employing nearly 400 hands. In 1845, a large
portion of the Essex side of the yard was a marsh, covered with water
at high tide. By 1854 it was one of the principal shipbuilding yards in
the world. The wages of the workmen at Blackwall averaged for eighteen
months £5000 per week, and some weeks it was £1600 more. The yards
of Messrs. Green, Messrs. Scott Russell, Messrs. Dudgeon, Messrs.
Maudslay, Messrs. Samuda, Messrs. Yarrow, and Messrs. Thorneycroft, to
mention only a few, besides a host of smaller builders, employed their
thousands of hands; but never a keel is laid there now. The banks of
the river which rang to the stroke of the shipwrights’ hammers are
silent; the slips are unoccupied or devoted to other uses, the furnaces
are cold; the machinery is sold or dismantled, and fragments of it may
yet be seen rusting ingloriously on the scrap-heap. Dawn now brings
no activity to the shipbuilding yards of the Thames, and dusk adds
nothing to their stagnation. Steam-ship repairing work is nearly all
that London river sees now. If, as sailors say, ships have spirits that
return to the yards where the vessels were built, when those ships
are lost or broken up, there must be many homeless phantoms haunting
the banks of the historic stream, seeking rest and finding none, and
perchance, as did certain of the ships they represent, going down the
river with the tide never to return: a ghostly fleet bearing many
mysteries which shall not be solved till the day when the insatiable
sea is called upon to surrender all it has taken captive.
The general superiority of iron screw steamers over those of wood
led to the introduction of a number of types designed to meet the
requirements of special trades.
James Hodgson, who, in addition to the _Sarah Sands_, built the
_Antelope_, the first iron screw steamer to leave Liverpool for the
Brazils, introduced the tubular type of iron vessels. _The Carbon_,
a vessel of this type, was built by him for the Eastern Archipelago
Company in 1855. In the construction of this boat he proposed to
dispense with the ordinary side frames altogether.
He stated in his synopsis that calculations of the strength of thirty
frames, in a ship that had answered exceedingly well, showed that a
partial bulkhead or frame projected from the side of the vessel to the
extent of only 20 inches was more than equal in strength to the thirty
frames, if it were supported on two bearings at a given distance and
weighted on the upper side in the middle. This frame, of 20 inches
deep, would carry more than the whole of the thirty frames, and when
the bulkhead was extended across to the other side of the ship there
would be a great preponderance of strength in favour of the bulkhead.
But, in dispensing with frames, it might, in some cases, be necessary
to increase the plating for the sides, to give some additional
strength. Since the strength of the materials increased as the square
of the thickness, the addition of one-eighth to five-eighths of an
inch plate increased the strength to resist a blow sideways, or in a
lateral direction, by nearly 50 per cent. The strength of the vessel
was further increased by placing the bulkhead in the widest part of
the ship, amidships, and by other bulkheads placed midway between the
midship bulkhead and the bow and stern, should it be deemed advisable;
and also by the interposition of stiffening plates. Other strengthening
means were also recommended. The vessel would be, he contended,
“capable of sustaining a considerable pressure, either externally or
internally, having round, swelling, or convex sides, with a ridge or
rib on the lower side which answers the purpose of a keel.”
Vessels of this type were expected to be much more economical to
build, and no more expensive to run than those built on the ordinary
lines. It was disputed whether a tubular vessel being without frames,
floors, &c., would be strong enough for all purposes. An accident to
Mr. Hodgson’s tubular cargo vessel, _The Carbon_, however, seemed to
justify his contentions, for she stranded badly when being launched, so
that her stern was submerged at high water. She was towed up the slip
again, and refloated, and it was found that only two plates required
repairs. _The Carbon_ was running until quite recent years in the east
coast coal trade to London.
Another important development in construction was due to Mr. J. Scott
Russell, who has been described, like Sir I. K. Brunel, as a man before
his time. Mr. Russell’s services to steam navigation in his exposition
of the wave-line theory of ship construction were of incalculable
benefit to the science. His object was to diminish the resistance
offered by the water to the passage of the ship, and the modifications
he made in the lines of the hull not only effected this to a very
remarkable degree, but also increased the seaworthiness and speed of
the vessels. He designed a number of small vessels suitable for special
trades or to meet particular requirements.
One introduced about 1855, for North Sea work, was an iron screw
steamer with a long parallel middle body which made a capacious
ship, the fore and after parts being designed in accordance with his
wave-line theory. Another of his cargo vessels, having a greater length
of parallel middle body and wave-line ends, had the screw propeller
abaft the rudder, which was entirely below the propeller shaft, there
being a loop in the rudder stock through which the propeller shaft
passed. A second vessel of this type, but rather longer in proportion
to its beam, was designed for the Baltic trade, and had the peculiarity
that its forecastle extended as far as the midship deck-house.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF GLASGOW” (INMAN LINE, 1850).]
The period from 1845 to 1880 is remarkable for the progress made in
steam-ship building prior to the general adoption of steel for the
construction of ocean vessels.
The early history of the Cunard Line has already been related. Before
the last wooden Cunarders were built, the Inman Line appeared on the
scene with a service of iron steamers with screw propellers, the first
being the _City of Glasgow_, launched in 1850 by Tod and McGregor on
the Clyde, for a transatlantic service they themselves intended to
establish with Glasgow as its headquarters. The side-lever engine of
the ordinary type was modified for this vessel, as it was fitted with
two beams working across the ship. The cylinders were on one side of
the ship, and on the other was a large wheel which geared three to one
with ordinary teeth into the propeller-shaft pinion. Her machinery
was placed low down in the hold so as to leave her decks as free of
encumbrances as possible.
She was a three-decked vessel of 1069 tons gross, 227 feet long by 33
feet beam and 25 feet depth; and her engines of 350 horse-power drove
a two-bladed screw of 13 feet in diameter and 18 feet pitch. She was
designed to carry 52 passengers in the first class; 85 in the second
class, and 400 in the steerage, and a crew of about 70. The hull was
divided by five water-tight bulkheads into six compartments, and as a
further provision for the safety of her passengers and crew she carried
six lifeboats. Her fresh-water tanks contained no less than 13,000
gallons. She was barque-rigged, of almost yacht-like lines, and had a
graceful clipper bow. The _City of Glasgow_ made a few voyages between
Glasgow and New York in the spring and summer of 1850.
Mr. William Inman of Liverpool had meanwhile been preparing for the
establishment of a line of steamers between Liverpool and America. His
idea was that modern iron vessels, equipped with screw propellers, were
bound to supersede paddle-wheel vessels, and also that there was money
to be made in the emigrant trade. His decision to place fast steamers
in this trade, however, was as much philanthropic as commercial,
for he was profoundly moved by the reports of the sufferings and
inconveniences experienced by emigrants in sailing ships, no less than
by the accounts of the fearful mortality among them. The carrying of
emigrants was, at that time, confined to sailing ships, many of which
were wholly unsuited to the purpose. The steamer companies catered
chiefly for those who could afford to pay well. Mr. Inman determined
to cater for the emigrant traffic also, and for forty-two years the
line bearing his name was pre-eminent in this branch of the work of the
Atlantic ferry.
Practically the only steamer which met the requirements he had in mind
was the _City of Glasgow_, and in the autumn of 1850 she was acquired
by the founders of the Inman Line.
“It was on December 10, 1850, that the Liverpool and Philadelphia
Steamship Company was established. Their agents were Messrs. Richardson
Bros. and Co., who had already a number of packet ships of their own.
They were the chief owners of the _City of Glasgow_, and their junior
partner was Mr. William Inman, who managed the shipping department of
the business.” This extract from the “Official Guide” of the Inman
and International Steamship Company Ltd., published about 1888, is
of interest in view of the various accounts of the inception of the
company which have been made public. The first sailing of the _City
of Glasgow_ for her new owners took place on December 17, 1850, from
Liverpool for Philadelphia. She was under the command of Captain
Matthews, who formerly had charge of the _Great Western_.
In June 1851, the _City of Manchester_, by the same builders and also
of iron, was purchased by the Inman organisation. She was of 2125 tons
and carried “overhead” or “steeple” geared engines of 350 horse-power.
Her cylinders and proportion of gearing, however, were identical with
those of the _City of Glasgow_.
In October 1851 the _City of Pittsburg_ was built at Philadelphia and
was the first American-built screw-propelled steamer in the North
Atlantic service. The _City of Philadelphia_ was delivered by Messrs.
Tod and McGregor in 1853, being of slightly greater tonnage than
her predecessor from the yard; but she was eclipsed by the _City of
Baltimore_ ordered the same year, the dimensions of the last named
being: 326 feet in length, 39 feet breadth, 26 feet depth, 2472 tons
gross and 1774 net.
This vessel took the place of the _City of Glasgow_, which in March
1854 disappeared in mid-ocean with 480 souls on board. In September of
the same year the _City of Philadelphia_ was wrecked off Cape Race, but
there was no loss of life.
“Inman’s iron screws,” as they were dubbed, were attracting attention,
and it was recognised as merely a question of time when steamers of
this type would prove successful rivals to the paddle-boats.
Mr. Inman became sole managing director in October 1854, as the result
of the offer of the British Government to charter certain of the
steamers as transports during the Crimean War, the use of the vessels
for this purpose being disapproved by Messrs. Richardson, who were
Quakers. About this time the company purchased the _Kangaroo_ from the
Pacific and Australasian Company, and ordered the _City of Washington_
from Messrs. Tod and McGregor. The _Kangaroo_ was 257 feet in length,
36 feet in breadth, 27 feet depth, and had a gross tonnage of 1719
tons. The _City of Washington_ was 358 feet in length, 40 feet in
breadth, and 26 feet depth, with a gross tonnage of 2870 tons.
The Crimean War saw a great demand by the Allies for transports,
and as the French Government offered better terms than the British
Government, the _City of Manchester_ was chartered to the French, and
was followed by the _City of Baltimore_, and six months later, when she
had concluded her trial trips, by the _City of Washington_. Upon the
termination of their engagement as transports these vessels returned to
the Liverpool and Philadelphia service.
For some time Mr. Inman had been considering the advisability of
making New York his American port instead of Philadelphia, and when
the _Kangaroo_, with all her passengers on board, was frozen up in
the Delaware and her departure for Liverpool was delayed for five
weeks, he inaugurated, in December 1856, a monthly service to New York
with the _City of Washington_. Two months later the Inman sailings
were increased to fortnightly, the sailings in the alternate weeks
being undertaken by the Collins liners. This arrangement was very
short-lived, for in the same month the Collins Line service was
withdrawn. In 1857 also, the title of the organisation was changed to
“The Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia Steamship Company,” to mark
the extension of the service to New York.
In October 1857 Mr. Inman’s Company bought up the Glasgow and New York
Steamship Company, and placed two of the vessels, the _Edinburgh_ and
the _Glasgow_, in the trade between Liverpool and New York. By 1860 the
demands upon the resources of the line were such that the first _City
of New York_ was ordered from Tod and McGregor. She was 336 feet in
length, by 40 feet beam, and 28 feet depth, and was of 2360 tons gross.
Her engines were of the horizontal, trunk type, and she was the first
vessel of this line in which engines of this design were installed.
The rivalry between the Inman and Cunard Lines was intense, and neither
company produced a steamer which the other did not seek to surpass,
but the Inman Company forged ahead both in the matter of speed and
passenger accommodation and became for a time the premier company on
the Atlantic. The White Star Line, however, entered the “ferry” with
vessels of a different type, and the competition between the three
great companies became keener than ever. The first _City of Paris_ was
added to the fleet in 1866. Her Cunard rival was the _Russia_. The
_City of Brussels_, of 3081 tons, began her sailings in October 1869.
She was the last of the Inman Line to be fitted with the long wooden
deck-house which was a conspicuous feature of so many ocean-going
steamers. Her average speed was between 14 and 15 knots, which was
slightly increased when she was re-engined in a few years’ time. In
December 1869 she made the voyage from New York to Queenstown in 7 days
20 hours 33 minutes, a record which remained unbeaten until September
1875, when the _City of Berlin_ made the westward passage in 7 days
18 hours and 2 minutes, and the homeward run in 7 days 15 hours 48
minutes. The _City of Brussels_ was the first vessel, apart from the
_Great Eastern_, in the North Atlantic trade, in which McFarlane Gray’s
steam-steering gear was introduced.
The dangers inseparable from the North Atlantic traffic led to the
adoption by the company in 1870 of the “lanes” or routes across the
ocean as suggested by Lieut. Maury of the United States Navy, a more
southerly course being taken during the months from January to August,
to avoid the icebergs from the northern regions. The Cunard and other
steam-ship companies adopted the system about the same time.
The _City of Berlin_ was contracted for by Messrs. Caird and Co. in
1873, and when she was launched the Inman fleet counted up thirty-one
vessels with a total of 76,766 tons. The rivalry between the builders
of the great ocean-going liners, no less than between the firms owning
the ships and the officers of the ships themselves, was very great, and
Messrs. Caird were successful in their endeavour to turn out a vessel
which should be admitted to be the finest ocean-going steamer afloat.
The rapid acquisition of one first-class vessel after another placed
the Inman Company in the front rank. This steamer was 489 feet long on
the keel, and 513 feet over all, by 45 feet beam and 36 feet depth. Her
speed was about 16 knots. She was of 5491 tons gross and 3139 tons net.
She had a pair of engines of the inverted direct-acting compound type,
with high- and low-pressure cylinders, and of 1000 nominal horse-power,
but on her trial trip the indicated horse-power was 5200, and this was
sometimes exceeded in her voyages. Her low-pressure cylinder was 120
inches in diameter, and the high-pressure was 72 inches. Her twelve
boilers were heated by thirty-six furnaces, the boilers being so
arranged that any number of them could be cut off.
It was pointed out by the _Nautical Times_ that while the nominal
horse-power of the _City of Bristol_, added to the fleet in 1860, was
as one to ten as regards the gross tonnage, that of the splendid _City
of Berlin_, put on the line in March 1875, was as one to five and a
half. She could accommodate 400 passengers, of whom 200 were in the
saloon, 100 in the second cabin, and the remainder in the steerage,
and her crew numbered 150. Electricity as a means of lighting was
introduced into the transatlantic trade on this steamer in November
1879.
All the Inman vessels hitherto launched were ship-rigged, and all had
the graceful clipper bows for which the line was famous, the Inman
fleet being unequalled for beauty. At times, as they were overhauled,
they were barque-rigged, and one or two were given a three-masted
schooner rig.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF ROME” (INMAN LINE, 1881).]
In June 1881 the beautiful _City of Rome_ was launched at Barrow for
the company, and sailed on her maiden voyage in the following October.
She was constructed of iron throughout, and was 560 feet in length by
52¹⁄₂ beam and 37 feet depth, and was of 8144 tons gross. This was the
first of the company’s steamers to have three funnels, and being placed
between the main and mizzen masts at regular spaces they served to add
to the appearance of the vessel. Her machinery marked another important
innovation as, although the engine was on the three-crank system, it
had three high-pressure cylinders of 46 inches diameter each, and
three low-pressure cylinders of 86 inches diameter each, arranged on
the tandem method, and the piston had a stroke of six feet. The eight
boilers worked up to 90 lb. pressure, with forty-eight furnaces so
arranged that a water-tight bulkhead was fitted fore and aft and formed
the coal bunkers, but this arrangement was modified afterwards. This
splendid vessel did not come up to expectations in the matter of speed
and was returned to the builders.
In 1875 the company was converted into the Inman Steamship Company,
Ltd. The _City of Rome_ was the last steamer the founder of the line
ordered, and he died before her completion. No further additions were
made to the fleet of the Inman Company. After the company and fleet
were acquired by the International Navigation Company in 1886, the new
firm also bought the _City of Chicago_ while she was on the stocks for
the Dominion Line. This vessel was the only one under the Inman flag to
have a straight stem. She ran for several years, and was then lost on
the south coast of Ireland.
[Illustration: THE “CITY OF CHICAGO.”]
[Illustration: THE “PERSIA” AND “SCOTIA” (CUNARD, 1856 AND 1862).]
The first iron steamer built by the Cunard Company was the _Persia_,
and she deserves more than a passing mention because of the association
with her of David Kirkaldy, Napier’s draughtsman, to whom modern steel
shipbuilding owes the discovery of the way to toughen steel and remove
its brittleness. Kirkaldy’s drawings of the _Persia_ are stated to
have been the only steam-ship designs ever exhibited at the Royal
Academy. He was also the first on the Clyde to give the question of
trial performances the attention it deserved. The first trial trips
recorded by him, on the _Larriston_, on September 22 and October 18,
1852, were printed when the Admiralty asked for particulars of the
respective behaviour of a Smith’s and a Griffith’s propeller. But he
was not allowed to continue his researches in this direction, and
even the _Persia_ left the Clyde without a single diagram having been
taken, for although Kirkaldy was in the engine-room during the entire
trial, he had not permission to record her performances. He obtained
data concerning many vessels “so as to be able to deduce the variations
of behaviour and relative economy, and trace such to their respective
origins, _e.g._, whether any variation was due wholly or in part to
the difference in the shape of the vessels, in the propellers, in the
engines, or in the boilers. The utility of these investigations was
signally demonstrated in the case of two vessels, _Lady Eglinton_ and
_Malvina_ ... the former proved a great success on her trial trip, and
the latter a comparative failure. He was able to trace the cause of the
failure and in great measure to rectify it. He clearly foresaw that
the time was surely approaching when his employers would require to
estimate for and construct vessels to fixed requirements as to draught,
speed, and economy of working.”[87]
[87] “Illustrations of David Kirkaldy’s System of Mechanical
Testing,” by Wm. G. Kirkaldy.
The drawings of the _Persia_ were made for his own pleasure, and the
first intimation of their existence was the announcement in the papers
that they had been admitted to the Academy. By Napier’s instructions
they were exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1855 together with
drawings of the steam-ships _Europa_, _America_, _Niagara_, and
_Canada_. Napier received a gold medal and the Legion of Honour as
exhibitor, and Kirkaldy received a medal as draughtsman. The drawings
of these four ships were placed in the Louvre Museum after being
presented to the Emperor Napoleon.
The _Scotia_, the second and last of the Cunard iron paddle-steamers,
followed in 1862. She was 379 feet in length, of slightly greater
beam and depth than the _Persia_, and of 3671 tons, and her engines
of 4900 indicated horse-power gave her a speed of nearly 14¹⁄₂ knots.
The _Persia_ was sold in 1868, and was converted into a sailing ship.
The _Scotia_ was kept in the service as long as possible, as she was
a favourite with the public, but her very limited cargo space and her
immense consumption of coal made it impossible to run her except at
considerable loss. She was consequently withdrawn in 1875, and sold
to the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance company, which had her
re-engined and turned into a twin-screw boat. She remained in the
service of this company for many years, and was used for cable-laying
purposes. These were not, however, the Cunard Company’s first iron
steamers, as they had already had for some time two smaller vessels of
iron in their Liverpool and Continental service.
By this time the Cunard directors were convinced, by the success of the
Inman steamers, and by the advice of the engineers whom they consulted,
that the paddle-steamer had reached its utmost point of development.
Henceforth they built screw steamers, the first being the _China_,
launched in 1862, and followed by the _Java_ in 1865, and the _Russia_
in 1867.
[Illustration: THE “CHINA” (CUNARD, 1862).]
[Illustration: THE “RUSSIA” (CUNARD, 1867).]
The _Russia_, and the Inman steamer _City of Paris_, the finest
commercial vessels afloat, left New York on the same day in February
1869, within about an hour of each other and arrived at Liverpool with
only thirty-five minutes difference between them. They made the run
across the Atlantic, with the twenty minutes’ stop at Queenstown, in
about eight days, eighteen hours. The _City of Paris_ started first,
and got in at 3.45 A.M., and the _Russia_ at 4.20. The vessels were in
company for four days. Once the _Russia_ passed the _City of Paris_,
but the Inman liner took the lead again, and at another part of the
voyage the Cunarder recovered her lost ground. As racing, however, was
strictly forbidden by the rules of the two companies, and the ships’
logs showed that no extra pressure of steam was used, it is supposed
that in this, as in many other cases of supposed ocean racing, the race
existed mainly in the imagination of the passengers, who for lack of
anything else to do worked themselves up into a frenzy of excitement
about it. The captains, of course, merely concerned themselves with
putting in all the seamanship they knew. Pictures published at the time
show that both vessels were under full sail, and even carried stunsails.
The _China_, after some years’ service, was sold and converted into the
sailing ship _Theodor_, and proved as fast after the change as when a
steamer. She foundered at sea in 1908.
In 1866 another competitor appeared on the North Atlantic. The fate
of the Collins and Galway Lines did not deter Mr. S. B. Guion from
inaugurating a rival service to that maintained by the Cunard and
Inman Lines, and for a time it seemed as if he would be successful
in wresting from the splendid vessels of these companies the premier
position on the Atlantic. The steamships which he placed on the service
between Liverpool and New York were at that period superior in size,
speed, and luxury to any of their competitors. He started the service
with the _Manhattan_, and thus inaugurated in 1866 what may be called
the great race of the greyhounds of the Atlantic. The _Manhattan_ was
built by the Palmer Company of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and was the first
of seven steamers comprising the line. Her length was 343 feet, her
beam 42 feet 6 inches, and her depth 28 feet, and her register was 2866
tons. She had accommodation for 72 passengers in the first class, and
800 in the second class, and besides taking 1000 tons of coal could
carry 1500 tons of cargo. A feature of this vessel was the attention
paid to the comfort of the second-class passengers, the cabins for
this class being on the main deck and thoroughly ventilated, wherein
they showed a marked improvement on the many other vessels carrying
emigrants. She was fitted with low-pressure inverted direct-acting
surface condensing engines, designed by Messrs. J. Jordan and Co. These
had cylinders of 60 inches in diameter, with a piston stroke of 42
inches. The _Chicago_ and the _Merrimac_, sister ships, followed from
the same builders. The _Chicago_ was wrecked in a fog on the rocks near
the entrance to Cork Harbour, and, a contrast to some of the disasters
to Atlantic liners, not a life was lost, the whole of the passengers
and crew, numbering 130, being landed by the ship’s boats within
an hour of the accident. The earlier Guion liners were brig-rigged
steamers, and some of them carried the new American double topsails on
both masts. Other boats which formed a part of the earlier fleet of
the Guion Line were the _Nebraska_, _Minnesota_, _Colorado_, _Idaho_,
and _Nevada_. In 1870 these were augmented by the _Wyoming_ and
_Wisconsin_, also built and engined by Messrs. Palmer. These were each
366 feet long, 43 feet broad, 34 feet deep, and of 3238 tons register.
Among other distinctive features they had the first compound engines
on the transatlantic route. These had one vertical high-pressure
cylinder of 60 inches in diameter, and one double-trunk horizontal
low-pressure cylinder of 120 inches in diameter, both working on the
same crank, and having a stroke of 42 inches. Great expectations as
to speed were entertained when the _Montana_ and _Dakota_, from the
Palmer yards, were brought into the service in 1872. They exhibited a
new design in hull and machinery as they had an abnormal slope of
side, flush steel plating, and water-tube boilers. These vessels each
had a length of a little over 400 feet, with a breadth of 43³⁄₄ feet
and a depth of 40³⁄₄ feet. Like the _Wyoming_ and _Wisconsin_, they had
compound engines, one high-pressure cylinder of 60 inches diameter,
working inverted on a forward crank, and two low-pressure cylinders
working horizontally on the after crank. The _Montana’s_ boilers were
constructed of a series of cross-tubes 15 inches in diameter and were
intended to carry a head of 100 lb. of steam, but in consequence of
an explosion when at 70 lb. pressure, they were replaced by ordinary
tubular boilers with a pressure of 80 lb. of steam. The _Dakota_ was
wrecked on the Welsh coast in May 1877, and a similar fate befell the
_Montana_ three years later. Seven years passed and then the _Arizona_
was brought into the Guion service. She was of iron and was built and
engined by Messrs. John Elder and Co. of Glasgow. Her dimensions were:
450 feet long, 45¹⁄₈ feet broad, 35³⁄₄ feet deep, with a register of
5147 tons. She differed from the earlier boats of the line by being
four-masted, carrying square sails on the fore and main masts, having
two funnels, and having her saloon accommodation amidships; in all
these particulars, as well as in the straight cutwater, she bore a
strong resemblance to her rivals of the White Star Line.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE “CITY OF PARIS,” 1866.]
Although there was no deviation in her hull from the existing type,
her machinery displayed some novel features. Her engines were compound
with three crank shafts, each having one cylinder. The high-pressure
cylinder was 62 inches in diameter, and was placed in the centre,
between the low-pressure cylinders each of 90 inches, and all had
a piston stroke of 66 inches. Steam was generated in seven boilers
capable of withstanding 90 lb. pressure, and furnished with thirty-nine
furnaces, which had an average coal consumption of 125 tons per day,
or in round figures 25 per cent. in excess of her fastest rivals,
which were then in the White Star Line. On her homeward voyage from
New York in July 1879, the _Arizona_ succeeded in breaking the record,
and repeated the feat on her outward passage in May 1880, when she
made the passage from Queenstown to New York in 7 days, 10 hours, 47
minutes, thus proving herself for two years in succession the fastest
boat on the Atlantic. While on her homeward passage in November 1879,
the _Arizona_ collided at full speed with an iceberg. Although she gave
the berg a direct blow she is one of the few vessels that have managed
to survive after such an experience. It was stated at the time that
there was a projecting spur of ice from the berg under water, and on
this the ship slid. Her weight caused the berg to rock, and it was to
this circumstance alone that she owed her safety, for the rocking of
the huge mass of ice enabled her to slip off the spur into deep water
again. A tremendous quantity of ice, dislodged by the shock, crashed
down upon her deck, doing a considerable amount of damage, and she had
only drifted a few hundred yards from the berg, after the impact, when
an immense portion of it fell at the spot where only a few moments
previously the ship had rested. This is one of the narrowest escapes
recorded in the annals of the sea. Fortunately, her collision bulkhead
withstood the enormous strain, and the vessel received a magnificent,
though entirely undesired, testimonial to the soundness and stability
of her construction. She put into St. John’s, Newfoundland, and was
found to be so badly damaged that she had to have entirely new bows.
The success of the _Arizona_ led to the building of the _Alaska_, which
proved another triumph for Messrs. John Elder and Co., for the speed
she developed won her the title of the Atlantic Greyhound, her homeward
passage in June 1882 being less than seven days. This remarkable run
was, however, eclipsed by the _Oregon_, the last vessel added by the
Guion Company prior to its dissolution; she sailed from Liverpool
to New York on October 6, 1883, and accomplished the passage from
Queensland to Sandy Hook in 6 days 10 hours 9 minutes. The _Oregon_
was an iron vessel built and engined by Messrs. John Elder and Co., on
similar lines to, but of greater dimensions than, the _Arizona_ and
the _Alaska_. She was no less than 500 feet in length, 54 feet wide,
40 feet deep, and registered 7375 tons. Her engines were compound
and consisted of one 70-inch high-pressure cylinder placed in the
centre, and two low-pressure 104-inch cylinders, with a 6-foot stroke;
her boilers had a steam-pressure of 110 lb., and her average daily
consumption of coal was 310 tons.
[Illustration: THE “OREGON” (CUNARD AND GUION LINES, 1883).]
From about this time the passenger service across the Atlantic began
to assume proportions and a degree of importance to which it had never
before attained. Hitherto the steamers engaged on the transatlantic
route had depended considerably on their cargo capacity as a means
of meeting expenses, but with the demand for larger and faster
vessels--and faster vessels could only be made larger--there was
developed an express passenger boat which depended almost wholly on
its passenger accommodation and carried a much smaller amount of cargo
than some of the older and smaller vessels then engaged in the trade.
The Guion Line did not wholly meet these requirements, and on the death
of Mr. S. B. Guion, the line gradually dropped out of existence, the
remaining vessels of the famous fleet of steamers being dispersed in
various directions. Some years before this happened, however, the White
Star Line began to build steamers for the Atlantic.
The White Star Line has always been the line of big ships. In its
sailing-ship days it owned some of the finest wooden clippers afloat,
famous alike for their size and speed. When Mr. T. H. Ismay in 1867
took over the management of the line and formed with some friends
the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company, there were already in existence
the Cunard, Inman, Guion, and National Lines, which had secured such
control of the Atlantic trade that it seemed almost rashness for the
new line to venture to compete with them. “Nothing venture, nothing
win”; the line now holds a position second to none in the world for
the magnificence and size of its steamers. All its vessels have been
built by Messrs. Harland and Wolff at Belfast. The first of the fleet
was the _Oceanic_, launched on August 27, 1870, which started on her
maiden voyage and the inaugural voyage of the fleet on March 2, 1871.
Several vessels of the same type followed in rapid succession, all
having the straight stem, four masts, and single funnel which were the
distinguishing marks of the White Star steamers in those days. The
_Oceanic_ was 420 feet long, 41 feet beam, 31 feet deep, and had a
registered tonnage of 3707. These steamers were somewhat differently
designed from the other boats on the North Atlantic. The high bulwarks
and narrow wooden deck-houses were dispensed with, and instead another
iron deck was added with open iron railings round it, there being
thus nothing to hold any water that might come on board. The saloons
were amidships and extended the entire width of the vessel, and the
staterooms were placed before and after the saloon and were better
lighted and ventilated than those of any other steamers. The engines
also were of a novel type; they were compound, four-cylindered, and
arranged tandem, with two high-pressure cylinders each 41 inches
diameter and two low-pressure each 78 inches in diameter, working on
two cranks and having a stroke of five feet. The engines were arranged
fore and aft, and each formed a complete engine in itself, so that
either could be worked in case of accident to the other. The _Oceanic_
inaugurated the era of the modern type of express ocean liner. After
a few voyages some alterations were made in her, which added to her
efficiency, her masts being shortened, and a whaleback being built
over her stern. In 1875 she was transferred, together with her sisters
the _Belgic_ and _Gaelic_, to the Pacific to inaugurate the White Star
steam service between Hong-Kong, Yokohama, and San Francisco.
Two famous sister ships the White Star Line had were the _Germanic_
and _Britannic_, built in 1875 and 1874 respectively; they were each
455 feet long, 45 feet broad, 33 feet 9 inches deep, and of 5004 tons
register. The hulls were built at Belfast, but the engines were by
Maudslay, Sons and Field and similar to those of the _Oceanic_. With
a speed rather above 16 knots, they were the first to reduce the
passage to below seven days. Numerous experiments were made with a
lifting propeller in the _Britannic_, but they were not a success and
the principle was never tried in any more of the company’s boats. The
company sought also to improve the lighting of their steamers. The old
system of lighting a ship by candles was seldom more than enough to
make the darkness visible, and oil lamps were not always much better;
so an attempt was made to install a gas-lighting apparatus. It worked
very well while the vessel was in port, the experiment being made on
the _Adriatic_ in 1872, and the _Celtic_ in 1873; but there was a
certain amount of leakage through the working of the ship in a sea-way
and the experiment was abandoned. Oil lamps were then installed in
these steamers and remained in use until superseded by electric light.
Another White Star experiment was with the oscillating saloon, intended
to keep berths and staterooms level while the ship was rolling, but
this was no more a success on the broad Atlantic than it was on the
English Channel when tried in the steamer _Bessemer_.
Other lines which have played a conspicuous part in the North Atlantic
trade are the State, the Beaver, and the National Lines, all of which
owned some very fine steamers. The last named was founded to run a line
between Liverpool and the ports of the Confederate States when the war
should terminate, but it proved a financial failure and the promoters
then decided to enter the Liverpool and New York trade. Its three
vessels, _Louisiana_, _Virginia_, and _Pennsylvania_, were the largest
cargo-carriers on the ocean, being of nearly 3500 tons gross. Three
larger steamers, _The Queen_, _Erin_, and _Helvetia_, were added in
1864, and three more in the next two years. The _Italy_, of 4300 tons,
was regarded as a wonderful ship on account of her size, and is stated
to have been the first of her type in which compound engines were
fitted. Other and larger steamers were added to the fleet to meet its
extensive requirements, until it sustained not only a weekly service
each way between Liverpool and New York, but also had regular sailings
from London to New York, calling at Havre. Its steamers were not
beautiful or fast, but were very steady, made cargo-carrying a feature,
and conveyed a great number of emigrants. Then the National Line
surprised every one by bringing out in 1884 one of the most beautiful
and graceful steamers ever seen on the Atlantic, and certainly the
fastest of her day--the _America_, which, as she was built of steel,
belongs properly to a later period of ship construction. She was 5528
tons gross, built and engined by Messrs. J. and G. Thomson, and was
sold in a few months to the Italian Government. Some years later the
line began to decline and it is now a part of the “Combine,” only two
or three vessels being under its flag.
[Illustration: THE “AMERICA” (NATIONAL LINE, 1884).]
The first mail steam-ship line between Liverpool and Canada was started
by McKean, McLarty, and Lamont of Liverpool in 1852 under contract
with the Government, but the effort was a failure, and in the next
year H. and A. Allan undertook the work. Their first steamer was the
_Canadian_ in 1853, followed by the _Indian_, _North American_,
and _Anglo-Saxon_, and as the Grand Trunk Railway was completed next
year to Portland, this town became the winter terminus of the line and
Montreal the summer terminus. Upon the completion of the intercolonial
railway in 1876, connecting Quebec with Halifax, the Nova Scotian port
became the winter terminus of the Allan Line. By 1882 the service had
increased to such an extent that the sailings were made weekly instead
of fortnightly. In 1862 the Allans established a line between Glasgow
and Montreal; a few years afterwards sailings were made between London
and Canada, and more recently still Continental calls were added.
The Donaldson Line, established in 1855, has for many years maintained
a service between Glasgow and Montreal, its vessels ranging from
sailers to some of the finest steamers entering the St. Lawrence
River. Its present service is performed with the twin-screw steamers
_Athenia_ and _Cassandra_, and nine single-screw boats; and another
twin-screw boat, the _Saturnia_, is shortly to be delivered, and will
be of about 8000 tons, the largest in the company’s fleet. The salient
feature of the Donaldson Line passenger steamers is the carriage of
one class of cabin passengers only, called second cabin. This enables
travellers to enjoy the best the ships afford, the accommodation being
equal to that on many long-distance steamers, such as those that go to
Australia. Its first steamer to Montreal was the _Astarte_ in 1874,
upon the withdrawal of the line from the South American trade in which
it had been engaged up to then; and its Canadian service, fortnightly
at first, became weekly in 1880. A line to Baltimore, Maryland, was
established in the winter of 1886-7, and the winter service to Canada
began with the Baltimore boats calling at Halifax on their west-bound
voyages.
No further attempt was made by the Americans to establish a line of
steamers across the Atlantic until 1871, but in that year Messrs.
Cramp of Philadelphia received orders for four large steamers of over
3000 tons each, and these with some English vessels maintained the
service of the American Line. In 1884 the Red Star Line took over the
line and ran the boats as cargo steamers. They were again transferred
in 1893 to another American Line which three years later sold them. In
the meantime, the later American Line ordered a number of vessels and,
besides buying up the Inman Line, absorbed the Inman and International,
which owned the steamers _City of Paris_ and _City of New York_. The
new owners dropped the words “City of,” and also had two steamers built
in America to comply with the Act of Congress under which the line was
formed.
The screw propeller was naturally not long in commending itself to the
builders of ships for the long voyages to India and Australia.
Mr. John Dudgeon, in an article published in 1856 on steam expansion
and the suitability of expansion engines for long voyages, was almost
prophetic in his remarks on the relative value of the screw propeller
and the paddle-wheel. In the article he said:
“The application of this property in steam to Australian screw steam
navigation, would, if adopted, effect a radical change in the whole
question. When we find that vessels of the magnitude of the _Great
Britain_ have to run thousands of miles out of their course to get
a fresh supply of coal, it becomes a question whether that state of
matters may not be amended. I therefore propose that vessels of, say,
2000 tons be built and fitted with engines working up to 1100 horses
actual power, which would ... consume 1609·5 lb. of coal per hour, and
with this power the vessel would steam at least 10 knots an hour ...
equal to 19 tons 4 cwt. per day and a speed of 240 knots; 500 tons of
coal would therefore be enough for a run of twenty-five days, and 6000
nautical miles. Should it be deemed prudent to carry a reserve stock,
coal for an additional 1500 miles would still not seriously interfere
with the carrying properties of a large vessel, while it would obviate
the necessity of having any stoppage but the Cape between Great Britain
and Port Phillip. A vessel of 2000 tons builders’ measurement will
carry at least 2000 tons dead weight, over and above her own weight
of ship and machinery. Presuming that she takes coal for 9000 miles,
or 750 tons, we still have a balance of 1250 tons for cargo and, in a
well-arranged vessel, room for 350 passengers. Now I apprehend that as
regularity and multiplied means of communication are the prime wants
in all commercial matters, we should do better to sail such ships as
these, with frequent departures, than if we were to build vessels of
double the size, and have double the time to wait for a full freight
and a full complement of passengers. No doubt that in a vessel double
the size we may manage to carry coal for the whole distance to Port
Phillip, but I apprehend that the delay of waiting for freight and
passengers would more than balance the delay of coaling at the Cape. It
must also be cheaper to send out coals in vessels adapted for the trade
of carrying coal, than to occupy the valuable room in even a large
vessel which ought to be appropriated to the carriage of that class of
goods which will pay for rapid steam communication. The sole question
at issue is: Can a vessel of from 2000 to 3000 tons be worked with an
economy equal to a vessel of from 4000 to 6000 tons? I contend that not
only is such the case, but that the balance of returns, and convenience
to the public, must be in favour of the moderate-sized vessel. With
such Leviathan vessels there is, first, the double outlay upon one ship
and corresponding interest of capital; secondly, there is a double
risk in case of losing the ship; a correspondingly higher premium of
insurance; additional risk of not having full cargo; additional time
required for procuring freight, stowing, and loading vessel, and the
almost impossible feat to be performed of finding a sufficiently large
body of passengers ready to go at the same time; the impossibility of
entering the ordinary docks in the kingdom necessitating the use of a
port of embarkation at a distance from the main channel of business.
The whole of these weighty objections then have to be balanced by
the economy theoretically presumed to be attainable by the increased
capacity of vessels for carrying coal, cargo, and passengers. It
appears obvious that coal-carrying can be done cheaper by auxiliary
vessels, where the station is in a direct line, than by the vessel
carrying them herself. It is only when the power of carrying coal is so
small or the consumption is so large, that the vessel is forced to make
a great number of stoppages, and make considerable detours to arrive at
coaling stations, that stopping to coal becomes so serious an evil.”
The writer goes on to contend that the propeller should be placed
outside the rudder, so that a coarse pitch may work with proper effect,
“as it is clearly proved that working the propeller in the deadwood
destroys a large portion of its useful effect, so much so that an
increase in the pitch of a propeller to the extent of one-third does
not show more slip (when used behind the rudder) than the two-thirds
when used before it.” He further contended that the proportion of
stroke to diameter should be greater in an engine that is to drive
a screw propeller direct than what is required for applying the
same power to a paddle-wheel, and it would soon be found that as an
instrument of propulsion, even for great speed, the screw would not be
inferior to the most approved patent paddle-wheel.
One has only to read a declaration of this character, by one of the
leading shipbuilders of his day, and then compare the situation,
the difficulties of which appeared to him wellnigh insuperable, but
every one of which has passed away, with the frequent sailings of the
enormous vessels which journey the whole of the way between England
and Australia under steam alone without stopping, and carry passengers
by the hundred, to realise the phenomenal developments which have
marked the progress of the last fifty years.
Races between steamers fitted with the rival modes of propulsion were
not uncommon, but did not always take place with official sanction,
though the results were carefully noted. One most exciting race was
held by arrangement in the Channel to test the relative capacities of
twin-screw and paddle boats in March 1865, the competitors being the
twin-screw steamer _Mary Augusta_ and the London, Chatham, and Dover
Railway Company’s new steamer _La France_, said to be the fastest boat
in the Channel service. The screw boat left Greenhithe early in the
morning and steamed down to Dover to wait the departure of the mail
steamer. The latter, when time was taken, was about three cables’
length ahead of and on the weather bow of the _Mary Augusta_. The
screw drew level, but a hot bearing developed in her starboard engine,
necessitating that engine making fewer revolutions and causing her to
steer badly. She continued to gain however, her rival, according to a
contemporary record, “emitting such immense volumes of steam and smoke
from her two funnels as satisfactorily proved that the engines were
having more steam than they could make use of, and that _La France_
could never at any time or under any circumstances during her yet short
career have been driven with more purpose to win than at the present.”
After the heated bearing was cooled the _Mary Augusta_ resumed her
full speed and the race was her own from that moment, and she reached
Calais Pier three and a half miles ahead. The _Mary Augusta_ returned
to England at full speed without entering Calais Harbour. The time
occupied by her in the double run from Dover to Calais and back was 2
hours 45 minutes 10 seconds, a rate of speed never equalled by any
screw steamer before. She went to the Thames at full speed in a violent
north-east gale and was back at Gravesend at a quarter-past nine the
same evening.
We will now continue the history of the steam-ship services to the
East, Africa, and South America. The P. & O. steamer _Himalaya_ has
already been mentioned. She was built of iron, was launched at Mare’s
shipyard at Blackwall in May 1853, and was originally intended to carry
paddle-wheels driven by engines of 1200 horse-power, but at an early
stage in her construction it was decided that she should be a screw
boat. Her engines, by John Penn and Son, were of 700 horse-power. This
steamer was 340 feet between perpendiculars and 46 feet 2 inches beam,
and of 3550 tons.
One notable steamer the company had was the _Delta_, launched in 1859
by the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company, and described
as the handsomest of her class yet built on the Thames. She was a
clipper-bowed vessel, carrying stump bowsprit, had two masts, and was
fore and aft schooner-rigged. Her masts and her two funnels raked aft
considerably, and gave her the appearance of possessing great speed.
She was 350 feet in length over all, with a beam of 35 feet 3 inches.
The engines, by Penn of Greenwich, were previously in the _Valetta_,
from which they were taken to make room for machinery of less power.
The change was of benefit to the _Valetta_, as she did equally well
with her new engines. At her trial in Stokes Bay the _Delta_ averaged
rather more than 14¹⁄₂ knots an hour, stated to be a greater speed than
had been attained there by any previous vessel. She was double the
tonnage of the _Valetta_ and carried 300 tons more coal, and had 1200
tons more displacement. Her engines, of 400 nominal horse-power, gave
an indicated horse-power of over 1600.
[Illustration: THE “DELTA” LEAVING MARSEILLES FOR THE OPENING OF THE
SUEZ CANAL.]
The company kept abreast of the times in its steam-ships, and without
displaying any recklessness was not behind in adopting innovations
likely to be advantageous. Its experiences with the compound engine
were not such, however, as to encourage it to take the lead with new
inventions. Its first essay in this direction was in the _Mooltan_,
built in 1860, and by 1864 several steamers had been constructed with
the new and costly engines.
“But the result was a grave disappointment. The economy was undoubted;
but the machinery, although it had been fitted by one of the most
eminent firms in the country, regardless of cost, was found to be
unreliable. The accidents were numerous, and although comparatively
slight, they occurred so frequently that the efficiency of the mail
service was in danger of being impaired. The result was that several of
the ships thus fitted had these costly engines replaced by less complex
machinery, involving the company in serious loss. The _Mooltan_ was
an example of a vessel fitted with appliances in advance of the age.
Not only were her engines of the new type, but she was likewise fitted
with hydraulic steering gear and refrigerating machinery; and all
these appliances had eventually to be removed, because they could not
be relied on to work satisfactorily throughout a long voyage. It was
not until 1869 that the company succeeded in building a steamer with
high and low pressure machinery which could be considered thoroughly
successful.”[88]
[88] P. & O. Company’s Handbook.
The African Steamship Company was incorporated in 1852 to carry out a
contract with the British Government for conveying the mails monthly
to the principal ports of the west coast of Africa and to Madeira and
Teneriffe, and also to establish a line of steamers between Sierra
Leone and the West Indies. The contract for the mails was entered into
by Mr. Macgregor Laird in December 1851, and was for ten years from the
ensuing December, commencing with an annual payment of £23,250 and
diminishing by £500 a year during the continuance of the contract, thus
averaging £21,500 per annum.
Five steamers were built for this service by Laird of Birkenhead; they
were of iron and were screw-propelled vessels. By 1860 the company was
in difficulties and it was proposed to wind it up, but the directors
were persuaded to try a service between Liverpool and the west coast
of Africa, with excellent results to all concerned for a time, but
the control of the company was not too efficient in London and the
concern dwindled until, in 1891, it passed into the possession of Elder
Dempster and Co., and then progressed even more rapidly than it had
previously declined.
The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, who it will be remembered launched
their first steamers in 1841, adopted the screw propeller in 1849 when
they launched the _Esk_. They were the first to adopt screw propulsion
for the conveyance of mails. The company assisted the Panama Railroad
Company in 1850 by lending them 125,000 dollars towards the completion
of the railroad across the isthmus, and in January 1851 opened a mail
service from Southampton to Brazil and the River Plate. Several of
their steamers were chartered as transports during the Crimean War.
The _Dee_ was chartered in 1860 to the French Government to convey the
“Irish Brigade,” which had been raised in Ireland to fight for Pope
Pius IX. against Garibaldi, from Havre to Cork on their return from
Italy.
In the following year the Confederate States commissioners, Messrs.
Slidell and Mason, were taken by force in West Indian waters by the
Federals from the R.M.S.P. _Trent_. The “_Trent_ affair,” as the
ensuing international crisis was called, ended in January 1862,
when the company’s _La Plata_ arrived at Southampton with the two
commissioners on board.
The _Shannon_, one of their steamers, arrived at Southampton in
August 1864 from the West Indies with a record consignment of specie,
consisting of gold and silver to the value of £1,511,426 in 2207
packages, which was transferred to the Bank of England in forty-one
waggons. In 1869 the R.M.S.P. transatlantic steamers extended their
voyage from Rio de Janeiro to Buenos Ayres, thus avoiding transfer
to smaller vessels at Rio de Janeiro; the _Douro_ being the steamer
inaugurating this extension.
The steam-ship _Victoria_, built of iron in 1852 for the Australian
Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company, gained the prize of £500 offered
by the colonies for the fastest voyage to Australia. Her time from
Gravesend to Adelaide was sixty days, including two days’ stay at
St. Vincent. She was designed by Messrs. I. K. Brunel and J. Scott
Russell for a speed of ten knots under full steam, and to provide as
much passenger accommodation and space for high-priced cargo as her
coal requirements would permit. She was 261 feet on the water-line and
registered 1350 tons. The entrance and run of the ship were of the
wave-like form, while the central 45 feet were parallel; the bilges
were round, the topsides tumbled home, and there was no external
keel, so that she was very heavy in a seaway. The hull was in twelve
water-tight compartments, and longitudinal bulkheads were carried
through from the engine and boiler rooms so as to separate the coal
from the machinery. The engines were of the oscillating type. The ship
had four masts and a sail area of 1540 square yards. Under steam alone
the engines at full power made 59 revolutions per minute and gave a
speed of 11 knots, with a coal consumption of 37 tons per 24 hours.
Under sail alone, with the screw held vertically, the speed was 5¹⁄₂
knots, but when the screw was allowed to run freely the speed increased
to 7¹⁄₂ knots. Her average speed was nearly 11³⁄₄ knots.
The Pacific Steam Navigation Company’s operations were confined to
the west coast of South America until 1865, when, in pursuance of
a supplemental charter, it extended its sphere to the River Plate.
Steamers were specially built for the service, and in 1868, the
_Pacific_, after being about three years on the coast, sailed for
Liverpool from Valparaiso to inaugurate the new mail service. Six other
iron screw vessels were added and the venture proved so profitable that
it was determined to make the sailings fortnightly, and the steamers
_Chimborazo_, _Aconcagua_, _Garonne_, _Cuzco_, and _Lusitania_ were
built. All these steamers were afterwards in the Orient Line’s service
to Australia, together with the _John Elder_, which was one of the
earlier batch of boats on the Liverpool-Valparaiso route. Seven more
steamers were added in 1871, and by 1873 the number of new vessels
totalled eighteen. They were all clipper-bowed barque-rigged steamers
and were very handsome craft. After this the company went in for the
straight stem and pole-masted type of steamer.
The rivalry in the various over-sea trades was very great, and
no sooner did one shipowner secure a vessel which surpassed its
competitors than other owners sought to improve upon it. The sailing
ships were soon obliged to give way to the steam auxiliary vessels,
especially when craft like the _Lightning_ appeared. The _Lightning_
was built by the Hendersons of Glasgow, and so pleased were her owners,
Messrs. Apcar of Calcutta, and their representative, Captain Durham,
with her, that he ordered the _Thunder_. The _Thunder_ was built by Mr.
Lungley at his yard on the Thames and engined by Messrs. Dudgeon, and
was an improved edition of her predecessor.
The _Thunder_ was launched in December 1859, and soon demonstrated
that she was the fastest steamer yet provided with a screw propeller.
She was a handsome vessel, ship-rigged, with clipper bows, and her
masts and funnels had a slight rake which gave her a very attractive
appearance. Her length was 240 feet between perpendiculars, beam 30
feet, depth 22¹⁄₂ feet, and her tonnage, builder’s measurement, was
1062. The engines were of 210 nominal horse-power with cylinders of 55
inches diameter, and a piston stroke of three feet. A peculiarity in
her boilers was that they consumed the fuel and heat in furnaces and
tubes to the point that the remainder escaped up the chimney and heated
the superheater to a temperature of 300 degrees, without regulation. On
her trial trip she travelled at the rate of at least seventeen statute
miles per hour, and afterwards did even better. Her coal consumption
also was the lowest then attained, being about one pound per indicated
horse-power per hour. Her screw was of the ordinary type and was
placed outside the rudder. The _Lightning_ and the _Thunder_ were both
employed in the China trade.
[Illustration: THE “THUNDER.”]
The first ocean-going screw steam-ship of her class to which the modern
double or twin-screw system was applied was the iron vessel _Far
East_, which was launched from Dudgeon’s yard, Millwall, towards the
close of 1863. She was intended for the China tea trade of the owners
of the _Lightning_ and _Thunder_. The _Far East_ was 227 feet between
perpendiculars and 210 feet on the keel; 34 feet beam, 22 feet moulded
depth, and 20 feet 6 inches depth of hold; her depth at load water-line
was 17 feet, her displacement 2200 tons, and her builder’s measurement
tonnage 1258 tons. On her upper deck she had a capacious poop and
forecastle, and there were deck-house and cabins amidships. Her engines
were of 150 nominal horse-power, driving a two-bladed lifting screw
under each quarter. The engines had annular combined cylinders, the
diameter of the high-pressure cylinder being 24 inches and of the
expansive cylinder 50 inches, with a piston stroke of 24 inches. The
screws were 8 feet 2 inches in diameter, with a pitch of 16 feet. Each
of the two boilers had six furnaces with 109 square feet of firebar
surface, and a tube surface of 1883 feet. The shafting of the screws
projected through a wrought-iron tube of great strength bolted to a
false iron bulkhead clear of the ship’s frame. The tube at its outer
end was connected with a wrought-iron slide, which guided the screw to
the well when being lifted, or to the shafting when being lowered. The
screws were raised by a worm and barrel apparatus. The lower and top
masts were of iron bolted together through flanges, and the topgallant
masts fitted closely into the topmast heads, so that the masts from
deck to button looked like immense slender poles. There were no tops,
but light iron cross-trees spread the rigging, and preventive top and
topgallant backstays were carried far aft of the lower rigging. Her
funnel was placed well abaft the main-mast. She was given a full rig on
all three masts, and in addition carried fore and main try-sails.
No sooner was she afloat than the double-screw steamer _Pallas_ was
sent into the water from the adjoining slipway; this being the first
time on record that two iron twin-screw vessels were launched from the
same yard on the same day.
In January 1865 the double twin-screw steam-ship, _Louisa Ann Fanny_,
was launched, and as it was thought she might possibly be acquired
by the Confederates, the bunkers were so arranged as to afford ample
protection for her engines from hostile shot. Her machinery consisted
of horizontal direct-acting engines with cylinders of 40 inches
diameter, and 22¹⁄₂ inch stroke, driving two three-bladed screws of 9
feet 3 inches diameter and a pitch of 17 feet 3 inches, the distance
from centre to centre of the screws being 10 feet 10 inches. She
attained, when loaded, a speed estimated at 15³⁄₄ miles an hour after
allowing for the tide.
Want of space has prevented the relation of further details of the
steam-ship history of the period, though a few from the long list
of steam-ship companies of other countries may be mentioned. The
Messageries Maritimes de France grew out of a company formed to carry
inland mails. In 1851 they contracted to carry some of the oversea
mails, and extending their operations as the years went on are now
the largest steam-ship company in France. The next largest French
company is the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, which was formed in
1862 and is also a mail carrier. To this company belong the largest
steamers ever constructed in France. The Hamburg-America Company of
Germany launched its first steamer, the _Borussia_, in 1855 for the
Atlantic service, and the Norddeutscher Lloyd followed in 1856 with the
_Bremen_. These boats were, however, built in Great Britain, as all
large German steam-ships were until comparatively modern times. The
Austrian Lloyd Steam Navigation Company, which belongs to Trieste, was
founded as far back as 1836 for the Mediterranean service.
This chapter may be fitly brought to a conclusion with a reference to
the _Great Eastern_--the wonder and the failure of her age in popular
estimation. To the general public she appeared as an extraordinarily
large ship which was a complete failure as a commercial undertaking. To
a few she was the embodiment of all that skill and scientific genius
had conceived in construction up to that time. She was the great
illustration of the longitudinal system of construction invented by
Scott Russell, and of the use of longitudinal and transverse bulkheads.
Scott Russell’s invention of the longitudinal frame was due to
his perception of the fact that as vessels increased in size the
longitudinal strain would become greater, especially when they were
carrying heavy machinery amidships or nearly so. In the vessels of the
size then constructed the longitudinal strain experienced by small
iron ships was comparatively small. One method adopted to strengthen
hulls longitudinally was to give them a number of floor-plates, forming
a strong continuous keelson. Other keelsons were also constructed to
run fore and aft near the bilges; a bilge stringer was added, while
on the outside, bilge keels were sometimes fixed. Russell introduced
the system in 1835, but the registration societies did not look with
approval on the innovation and nothing came of it at the time.
As ships were made larger, however, the nature of the stresses they
had to bear became better understood, and precautions had to be taken
to prevent the hogging and sagging to which they are subjected by
the motion of the sea, besides the lateral and other stresses. In
1835-6 Mr. Russell built three small iron vessels, one of which had
a longitudinal middle-line bulkhead and four transverse bulkheads
connected by longitudinal stringers and without transverse frames.
The other two had no longitudinal bulkheads but were fitted with a
greater number of transverse partitions and stringers. He applied
the latter method in 1850 to a small iron screw boat on the Humber,
and in her some deep web plates were fastened by angle irons to the
shell-plating and were also stiffened with angle irons along the
inner edge. The inventor described this arrangement as being ordinary
transverse bulkheads with the whole of the centre portion removed. The
same year he built an iron paddle-steamer, 145 feet in length by 15
feet beam, and 7 feet 6 inches depth, on the longitudinal principle.
Notwithstanding its extraordinary length in proportion to its beam
and depth the vessel was a perfect success. One notable vessel
constructed on this principle was the _Rhenus_, 197 feet over all, by
25 feet extreme breadth, and 9 feet depth, and drawing only 3 feet of
water. These vessels, which were almost experimental in character,
were followed by several others of a more highly developed type, such
as the _Baron Osy_, a fine and fast paddle-steamer launched in 1855
for the London and Antwerp service. She was strengthened with the
partial or open bulkheads of the type already described, which acted
as frames, and had broad top stringers under the deck. This vessel
had an oscillating condensing engine with two cylinders, and her
paddles gave her a speed above that of other vessels on the route. The
success achieved by her, both in regard to constructional strength and
seaworthiness, had not a little to do with the designing of the _Great
Eastern_. Before this, however, in 1852, Scott Russell designed with
Brunel, who was consulting engineer to the Australian Royal Mail Steam
Navigation Company, two steamers, the _Victoria_ and _Adelaide_, on
the wave-line principle, but they were not on his longitudinal system
though including some of its features. In these vessels he introduced
for the first time fore and aft bulkheads amidships combined with a
part iron deck. They had an important influence on the adoption of the
longitudinal system, as the constructional strength of the vessels
was provided for by the addition of a flat keelson extending almost to
the bilges and connected at either side with a longitudinal bulkhead
which formed the coal bunkers and rose as high as the main deck,
the hull thereby being transformed into a powerful box-girder. The
experience derived from these vessels caused them to be the forerunners
of the _Great Eastern_, and like her they were a financial failure.
They could not carry enough fuel for the voyage, and this and other
considerations led Brunel to design the great ship in an attempt to
solve the difficulties to which these vessels had directed attention.
He estimated that the vessel would be able to attain a speed of 15
knots at a less coal consumption per ton than any steamer in existence.
The Eastern Navigation Company was formed in 1851 and decided on the
construction of a steamer in accordance with his views. It was proposed
to run a line of big steamers to the East, via the Cape of Good Hope,
and as the vessels were referred to as Leviathans the name _Leviathan_
was chosen for the first (and, as it happened, the last) vessel the
company ever owned. This was the _Great Eastern_. The lines of the
vessel were designed by Russell, who also built the hull. The details
of the ship’s construction were settled by Russell and Brunel; the
longitudinal system was adopted, together with the bulkhead system, to
which Russell attached such importance.
The _Great Eastern_ was built with an inner skin from the keel to
the water-line, thus being a double-hulled vessel. The inner and
outer skins were of the same thickness of iron plates, the bottom
plates being one inch thick and the other plates three-quarters of
an inch. The space between the two hulls was 34 to 36 inches, and
this was estimated to hold 2500 tons of water-ballast if required.
The transverse iron bulkheads divided the ship into a number of
compartments, each sixty feet long, and in order to add to the strength
of the ship and increase her safety in case of collision, there was no
opening in these bulkheads lower than the level of the second deck. For
350 feet of her length the vessel had two longitudinal bulkheads 36
feet apart, beside which there was a second intermediate bulkhead up
to the main deck, forming a coal bunker. Five of her six masts were of
iron and hollow, and the sixth of wood.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”]
The project of building this enormous ship was received with enthusiasm
by the public. Every item of news, correct or otherwise, was welcomed
eagerly, and the newspapers vied with each other in the extravagance
of their assertions. She had both paddle-wheels and a screw propeller,
and it was confidently stated that she would attain a speed of even
twenty-five miles an hour, and this, it was thought, might be exceeded
if she had a strong favourable wind and used both her mechanical aids.
Her size was expected to make her indifferent to the storms of the
ocean, and her behaviour at sea was confidently prophesied under all
sorts of conditions.
_Chambers’ Journal_ published an article in which the powers of the
vessel were set forth, and in which it said:
“It has generally been conceived that the ill-fated _President_
steam-ship snapped across some Atlantic wave, as a match might
be snapped between the fingers; the still more gigantic _Great
Western_, _Himalaya_, _Atrato_, and _Persia_ have, however, since
that unfortunate accident, continued to plough their ways in safety
through the ocean storms. The _Great Britain_ lay for months among the
breakers of the rock-bound coast of Ireland, and yet finally floated
off unscathed, to render good service to the British Government as a
transport in time of need. The grand experiment of the cyclopean order
of naval architecture is, however, in preparation, and shortly to be
put to the test. The Great Eastern Steam Navigation Company have for
some time been engaged in building an iron ship upon a scale, both as
regards absolute dimensions and strength of material, that will at
once change all its leviathan predecessors into pigmies.
“The upper deck runs flush and clear from stem to stern for a breadth
of about twenty feet on either side, thus affording two magnificent
promenades for the passengers just within the bulwarks. These
promenades will be each rather more than the eighth part of a mile
long. Four turns up and down either of them would exceed a mile by 256
feet. The vessel when launched will be more than as long again as the
steam-ship _Great Britain_; it will be nearly three times as long as
the line-of-battle ship the _Duke of Wellington_, and nearly as long
again as the _Himalaya_; eighty-eight feet more would make it as long
again as the _Persia_, at present the longest vessel afloat upon the
ocean.
“It is anticipated that this multiplication of internal braces and
supports will be sufficient to enable the hollow hull to resist, as
a whole, very much more violence and much heavier strains than the
elements can ever inflict upon it.
“It is calculated that a sharp long wedge of this kind, impelled by
the force of nearly 4000 horses, and extending its length on the water
along a distance of nearly 700 feet, will pass through it with the
speed of twenty miles an hour. This would be amply sufficient to enable
it to make the voyage to India, round the Cape of Good Hope, in thirty
days, or to Australia in thirty-three days.
“The anchors alone will weigh 55 tons, and there will be 200
tons of capstans, cables, and warps connected with them. These
ponderous implements obviously could not be wielded by human hands,
and accordingly steam-sailors will be prepared to do what the
flesh-and-blood sailors would not be able to accomplish. There will
be journeymen steam-engines stationed conveniently for effecting
the anchoring and weighing, and, indeed, for performing many other
services ordinarily carried out by the crew. Possibly there will be
steam-steersmen for the guidance of the mass. It is on account of this
supplementary and subsidiary steam-service that only 400 men will be
needed to work so vast a ship.
[Illustration: LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”]
“Once again, how will the winds and the waves affect this leviathan
mass, when they chance to be in their surly and ungenial moods? A
connected mass of 27,000 tons is not as easily heaved as a cork or a
cockle-shell; but the storm-winds and the storm-waves of the open ocean
have a tremendous power. What will they do then, with this stupendous
morsel, when they have it fairly within their clutches? The heaviest
hurricane-wind blows with a force that would act upon a square foot
of resisting surface with a pressure equivalent to a weight of 40 lb.
Such a wind could only heel the leviathan with its full load out of the
perpendicular to the extent of six inches even if it struck it quite on
the side! The waves of a fresh sea run about 100 feet long. Those of a
moderate sea are 300 feet long. Of such the leviathan would take two
at once, and would preserve the while almost an even keel. The highest
storm-waves ever seen on the wide and deep ocean are only 28 feet high
from trough to crest, and 600 feet long from trough to trough. Of
course the leviathan would still take two at a time, when the crest of
one was near to the bow, and the crest of the other near to the stern.
Under the most unfavourable circumstances such waves would not disturb
the horizontal equilibrium of the deck line to the extent of more than
five degrees.... The captain of the leviathan will have a cabin for
himself, situated conveniently near the centre of his domains, on the
mid-deck, and between the huge paddle-boxes. But placed here like a
spider lurking in the centre of its web with outstretched attentive
feelers, he will have to use his telescope to see what is going on at
the bows and stern; and the old contrivance for issuing orders, the
speaking trumpet, will be altogether out of date and valueless in his
hands. His voice, even with this aid, would hardly be heard half-way
to the stern. He will have to signal his directions to his officers
by semaphore arms by day and by coloured lamps by night. He will also
have electric-telegraphs ramifying to the engine-rooms, and to other
places to which it may be necessary that his instructions should be
instantaneously communicated. The compasses will be placed aloft
on a staging reared forty feet above the deck, to remove them from
disturbing influences inherent in the vast masses of iron below; and
it is proposed that strong shadows of the needles shall be cast from
a tube, so that the steersman may at once watch these shadows, and so
follow exactly the movements of the compasses as they traverse. It is
also proposed to carry a perpetual moonlight diffused around the ship,
emanated from an electric light planted on the foremast head.
“Up to the present time £350,000 has been expended upon this wonderful
construction, and by the time the vessel is ready for sea, this sum
will have been augmented into nearly £800,000. It will, however,
be understood that there is a fair capacity in the vast vessel for
yielding a revenue ample enough to render the undertaking a commercial
success, notwithstanding this great cost, when it is borne in mind
that if the fares for a single outward or homeward passage to India
or Australia for the three classes be fixed only at £65, £35, and £25
respectively, the passage-money alone for the voyage out and home
would amount collectively to something beyond £300,000 if all the
berths were occupied. It is an interesting fact that naval engineers
fix the amount of tonnage required in a steam vessel designed for any
particular voyage by a very simple standard; they consider that one ton
of burden is needed for every mile to be traversed; hence it is that
this vast steam-ship has been made capable of carrying 25,000 tons. It
is intended to go in every voyage 25,000 miles: it is a distance equal
in extent to the circumference of the world.
[Illustration: CARICATURE OF THE “GREAT EASTERN,” FROM A CONTEMPORARY
PRINT.]
“It is estimated that this great vessel with 5000 tons of merchandise
and her complement of 4400 living beings would still be able to store
enough coal for her consumption during a complete circumnavigation or a
voyage out and home.”
The iron plates used in the construction of her hull weighed 10,000
tons and to fasten them together required three million rivets.
Her length was 680 feet, breadth 82¹⁄₂ feet, depth 58 feet, and
displacement 27,384 tons. The paddle-engines were of 1000 nominal
horse-power and worked up to 3411; and weighed no less than 836 tons.
The four cylinders weighed when finished 28 tons each, they were
74 inches in diameter and had a stroke of 14 feet. Each of the two
right-angle cranks was driven by two cylinders, inclined at a mean
angle of 22¹⁄₂ degrees from the vertical. Each paddle-wheel was worked
by a complete double-cylinder engine and could be revolved without the
other if necessary. Four double-ended tubular box boilers supplied
steam for the paddle-engines at 24 lb. pressure. They were each 17¹⁄₂
feet long by 17 feet 9 inches wide, and 13 feet 9 inches high, and had
forty furnaces and 4500 square feet of heating surface. Each boiler
weighed fifty tons and contained about forty tons of water. Her first
paddle-wheels were 56 feet in diameter, but these were damaged in some
rough weather, and the next pair, only 50 feet in diameter, were much
stronger and equally serviceable in the matter of speed and lasted
out the ship. Her calculated speed under both screw and paddles was
15 knots and under the wheels alone seven knots. She certainly never
approached the fanciful speeds predicted for her by the newspaper
enthusiasts, and it is only fair to her builders and designers to say
that these prophecies did not originate with them.
The engines for the screw propeller by James Watt and Co. were
horizontal and direct-acting, and were of 1800 nominal horse-power and
4886 horse-power indicated. They weighed 500 tons. Six double-ended
tubular rectangular boilers gave steam at 25 lb. pressure. The
propeller was a four-bladed cast-iron screw 36 tons in weight, and of
24 feet diameter and 44 feet pitch. The shaft of the propeller weighed
60 tons and was 150 feet in length. So as not to interfere with her
speed when the screw should not be working, two small auxiliary engines
were fitted to keep it revolving when disconnected from the main
engines. Her speed under the screw alone was about nine knots.
Her longitudinal bulkheads were carried to the uppermost deck, which
was perfectly flush and extended from one end of the ship to the other.
An iron deck connected the head of each longitudinal bulkhead with the
ship’s sides and this, being at the greatest possible distance from
the bottom of the girder, was in a position to contribute most to the
longitudinal strength. The Britannia Bridge over the Menai Straits
has its top and bottom flanges of cellular construction, and Brunel
practically repeated this formation in the _Great Eastern_, by making
both the bottom and the upper deck cellular.
The launch of the _Great Eastern_ was arranged for November 3, 1857,
and it was not till then that it became known that this was to be the
vessel’s name and not _Leviathan_. The vessel moved only a few feet and
then stuck. One of the causes of the hitch was that the ship was being
launched sideways, thereby greatly adding to the difficulties of the
operation. Another attempt a few days later did not move her an inch.
On January 11 she was got a little nearer the water and the next day
was moved a little farther; she was finally launched at the next spring
tides at the end of the month.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE PADDLE-ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”]
“It is incomprehensible how so eminent an engineer as Brunel should
have made such a mistake as to attempt to force so huge a fabric
broadside-on into the river. The costly experiment added £120,000 to
the cost of the ship, and practically ruined the company.”[89]
[89] Kennedy’s “History of Steam Navigation.”
As the company had not the money to finish her, it was wound up and the
ship was sold to another company, formed to take her over, the price
being £160,000. It was necessary to raise another £300,000, and as the
financiers would not find the money, the public was appealed to and
responded to the extent of £50,000 from some of the humblest classes in
the community, “without any expectation of profit, but solely that they
might hear of the great ship, which they looked upon as the pride of
England, being fairly afloat on the deep waters.”[90]
[90] _Illustrated London News_, August 13, 1859.
Her first trial trip took place in September 1859 and was marred by an
explosion which killed six men, wounded several others, and wrecked
the saloon. She was designed to carry 800 first-class passengers, 2000
second-class, and 800 third-class, or 10,000 troops, it being expected
that the Government would utilise her as a troopship. Her first voyage
was made, not to India, to which she never went, but to New York, to
which she took 36 passengers. She left Southampton on June 17, 1860,
and arrived on June 28, all New York turning out to see her. Her best
day’s run was 333 miles, and at no time did she exceed 14¹⁄₂ knots an
hour. On her homeward voyage she did rather better, as she carried
212 passengers and a large cargo in a passage of 9 days 11 hours. Her
one experience as a trooper was when she took 2125 soldiers to Canada
at the time of the _Trent_ affair. On her next outward voyage she met
with a gale in which her steering gear was rendered useless and she was
nearly lost. In 1865 she was engaged in laying the Atlantic cables. She
was employed in this kind of work for some years, off and on, until in
1886 she was acquired by an enterprising drapery and tea firm and used
as a show-place and advertisement. In 1890 she was sold to be broken
up, and thus disposed of in small lots at little better than old iron
prices. The _Great Eastern_ was an unlucky ship from start to finish.
From the bankruptcy of Mr. Scott Russell some time before she was
launched until she was left to rust on a Mersey mud-bank, almost every
one concerned with her had a share of her misfortune. The one task in
which she acquitted herself well was the Atlantic cable-laying.
But her significance in the history of steam-ship construction must
not be under-estimated. Sir William H. White’s opinion on this point
was given in his address to the Institution of Civil Engineers, in
1903, as follows; “Having recently gone again most carefully through
Brunel’s notes and reports, my admiration for the remarkable grasp and
foresight therein displayed has been greatly increased. In regard to
the provision of ample structural strength with a minimum of weight;
the increase of safety by water-tight subdivision and cellular double
bottom; the design of propelling machinery and boilers, with a view to
economy of coal and great endurance for long-distance steaming; the
selection of forms and dimensions likely to minimise resistance and
favour good behaviour at sea; and to other features of the design which
need not be specified, Brunel displayed a knowledge of principles such
as no other ship-designer of that time seems to have possessed, and
in most of these features his intentions were realised. To him large
dimensions caused no fear. ‘The use of iron,’ he remarks, ‘removes
all difficulty in the construction,’ and experience of several years
has proved that size in a ship is an element of speed, strength, and
safety, and of greater relative economy, instead of a disadvantage, and
that it is limited only by the extent of demand for freight, and by the
circumstances of the ports to be frequented.”
CHAPTER X
THE BUILDING OF STEEL SHIPS
As early as 1853 mild cast steel had been suggested for shipbuilding,
and in 1855 Howell introduced it as “homogeneous metal,” but
shipbuilders took little notice of the suggestion for some years.
Robert Napier and Sons received orders in 1858 for some high-pressure
boilers and marine machinery where lightness combined with strength
was of the utmost importance, and it was proposed to use “homogeneous
metal” for the one and puddled steel for the other instead of the
wrought iron which was ordinarily employed. Steel as then made was
very brittle and many attempts were made to remedy this defect. David
Kirkaldy made a series of important experiments which lasted three and
a half years and attracted the attention of the Scottish Shipbuilders’
Association. His principal service was the discovery and placing on
record of the effects of oil hardening upon the properties of steel.
The _Ma Robert_ is said to have been the first steel steamer ever
built; she was constructed by Laird’s for the Livingstone expedition to
the Zambesi. High tensile steel was used with a limit of elasticity of
about twenty-three tons, which is very similar to the metal used in the
_Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ where stresses are to be met. Strength
and lightness were essential in the _Ma Robert_ and therefore the new
material was used. The little vessel was 73 feet long, 8 feet wide, and
3 feet deep, and was flat-bottomed and of very little draft. But the
hull corroded badly and leaked very much, and the steamer came to grief
on a sandbank in the Zambesi.
The _Rainbow_, built of steel plates in 1858, was a smart, handsome
paddle-boat, schooner-rigged, and carrying two very tall masts. She
had a high-pressure engine and her steam-pipe emitted the energetic
snort which was peculiar to the locomotive of the time. Indeed her
high-pressure machinery made such a noise that she could be heard from
one side of the Mersey to the other. She was intended for the Niger
Exploration expedition, and on her trial attained a speed of between
twelve and thirteen miles an hour. She was 130 feet long by 16 feet
beam. Although her plates were only one-eighth of an inch thick she
had the stiffness and rigidity of a strong ship, and there was almost
an entire absence of vibration from the engines. Her boilers, which
were of puddled steel plates, were proved up to 200 lb. on the square
inch, though they were only worked at 50 to 60 lb. The engine was of
60 nominal horse-power, working up to 200 indicated. The hull was
divided athwartship and longitudinally by bulkheads into ten or twelve
water-tight compartments.
It must be remembered that these experimental steel boats were intended
for inland navigation, and being taken to Africa were withdrawn from
the observation of practically every one who was competent to judge
of the relative merits of iron and steel. Certainly no one attempted
to build a steel boat for the ocean for some years afterwards, and it
was not until 1875, when the Admiralty, acting upon observations made
in the dockyards of France where steel was being used, represented to
British manufacturers the importance of improving the quality of steel,
that the Siemens-Martin process was brought out, and in consequence two
cruisers were constructed of steel produced in this way.
[Illustration: THE “BRITANNIC” (WHITE STAR LINE, 1874).]
[Illustration: THE “UMBRIA” AND “ETRURIA” (CUNARD).]
With the launching of the _Rotomahana_, an ocean steel steamer of 1777
tons gross built by W. Denny and Bros. in 1879 for the Union Steamship
Company of New Zealand, the iron age of the steamer may be said to
close and the age of steel to begin. It has been shown how iron slowly
but surely replaced wood in construction; when the superiority of steel
to either had been practically demonstrated the change from iron to
steel was rapid. In 1891 over 80 per cent. of the steam-ships under
construction were of steel.
The _Rotomahana_ was followed in 1881 in the transatlantic trade by
the Allan liner _Buenos Ayrean_. The Allan Line has always been to the
fore in the provision of first-class steamers. They were the first to
have a steel ocean steamer; the first to adopt bilge keels on vessels,
the _Parisian_ in 1884 being fitted with them; and they were the first
to make the experiment with turbine-driven steamers for ocean traffic
in the _Victorian_ and _Virginian_ in 1903. These two vessels are 540
feet in length by 60 feet in breadth, and 40 feet 6 inches in depth.
They are of 12,000 tons register, and have a speed of 17 knots. Besides
these, the company has five twin-screw boats of tonnages ranging from
9000 to 11,000 tons, and twenty-two screw boats from 3000 to 5395 tons.
The Cunard Line’s first steel steamer was the _Servia_, built by
Messrs. J. and G. Thomson, and completed in 1881. She was 515 feet in
length, and of 7392 gross tonnage, and her engines, of 10,000 indicated
horse-power, gave her a speed of 17 knots. Incandescent electric lamps
were fitted in her, she being the first of the fleet to carry them. The
_Aurania_, of slightly less length, but of equal speed, and also of
steel, was built in 1883. After her came the _Umbria_ and _Etruria_,
steel single-screw steamers, with engines of 14,500 indicated
horse-power, giving them a speed of 20 knots. The sisters _Campania_
and _Lucania_, steel twin-screw vessels of 12,952 tons, were added for
the New York trade, and later the _Caronia_ and _Carmania_. They were
sisters except in their engines; the latter being the company’s first
turbine experiment, and having triple propellers. They are each 675
feet in length by 72 feet 6 inches beam, and 43 feet 9 inches moulded
depth.
The _Etruria_ was sold in 1909 to the shipbreakers for £16,750, and
with her there ended another chapter in the history of the navigation
of the North Atlantic. She was a “flyer” only a few years before being
disposed of, her record passage from Queenstown to New York being 5
days 20 hours 55 minutes, and her eastward passage 6 days 37 minutes.
She was built to outstrip the _Oregon_, a vessel built for the Guion
Line in 1883 by John Elder and Co., and known from her speed of 18
knots as “the greyhound of the Atlantic.” The same builders were
ordered by the Cunard Company to eclipse her, and constructed two
steamers, the _Etruria_ and _Umbria_, which for many years were the
fastest ships afloat. Before they left the builders’ hands, however,
the _Oregon_ was acquired by the Cunard Company. The two Cunarders had
the largest compound engines in existence. These boats were 500 feet
between perpendiculars, 57 feet 3 inches beam, and 40 feet moulded
depth. They were each of 8127 tons gross, and had engines of 14,500
indicated horse-power, giving them an average speed of 19 knots. It
was stated of them at one of the meetings of the Cunard Company that
“no ships ever gave their owners less uneasiness than these two, and
no ships have done such an extraordinary amount 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.”
[Illustration: THE “MAURETANIA” (CUNARD, 1907).]
[Illustration: THE “CAMPANIA” (CUNARD, 1892).]
The Cunard express steamer _Mauretania_, sister ship to the
_Lusitania_, launched at Clydebank, was constructed on the Tyne by
Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., who were already
represented in the Cunard fleet by the _Ultonia_, _Ivernia_, and
_Carpathia_. A description of the _Mauretania_ given by the builders
and the Cunard Company states that the flat keel-plate is five feet
wide and three and three-quarter inches thick, and forms a portion of
the bottom of the ship. Associated with this flat keel is a vertical
keel, five feet high and one inch thick, and to this vertebra are
attached, directly or indirectly, the frames and beams which make
up the skeleton. The double bottom is divided by this vertical keel
and the transverse frames into compartments in which water-ballast
may be taken. The tops of these tanks are carried well round the
turn of the bilge, so that should the bilge keels be torn away and
the hull pierced, the entering water would be confined between the
inner and outer bottoms. As a further precaution towards securing
insubmersibility, the lower deck is made completely water-tight. Below
it are the orlop and lower orlop decks, and above are the main, upper,
shelter, promenade, upper promenade, and boat decks--nine decks in all.
Automatically closing water-tight doors are fitted in the bulkheads,
and can be closed from the navigating bridge in a few seconds. The
_Mauretania_ has 175 water-tight compartments, so that it is claimed
for her that she is as unsinkable as a ship can be.
“The steel plates which cover the ribs or framing of the vessel or
are used for the decks, bulkheads, and casings, or in other ways,
number 26,000, the largest being about 48 feet in length, and weighing
from four to five tons. To secure these plates to each other and the
structural framework of the ship, over 4,000,000 rivets have been used,
aggregating in weight about 500 tons. The largest rivets are used in
the keel-plate, and these are eight inches in length and weigh 2³⁄₄
lb. The main frames and beams placed end to end would extend thirty
miles; the rudder, which has two sets of steering gear, both of which
are below the water-line, weighs 65 tons, and the diameter of the
rudder stock is 26 inches. The castings for the stem, stern-post, shaft
bracket and rudder together weigh 280 tons. Her ground gear is, with
that manufactured for her sister ship, the _Lusitania_, the strongest
yet made. The three anchors each weigh ten tons, while the 1800 feet of
cable is composed of 24-inch links, the iron in which is 3³⁄₄ inches
in diameter and the weight of each link about 1¹⁄₂ cwts. This mighty
harness has been vigorously tested, sample links and shackles emerging
successfully from a test strain of 370 tons.
“The principal measurements of the _Mauretania_ are:
Length 790 feet.
Breadth 88 „
Depth (moulded) 60 „
Gross tonnage 32,500 tons.
Displacement tonnage 45,000 „
Load draught 37 ft. 6 ins.
Height of funnels 155 feet.
Diameter of funnels 24 „
Height of masts 216 „
“Figures, however, convey but a bare idea of the great size. A
favourite standard of comparison in shipping is the leviathan of
Brunel, the _Great Eastern_, the mammoth steamer, which, born before
its time, yet solved in her construction many of the most difficult
problems with which the modern builders of big ships have to grapple;
yet the _Mauretania_ quite dwarfs the gigantic _Great Eastern_, as the
following figures show:
_Great Eastern._ _Mauretania._
Length 692 feet. 790 feet.
Breadth 80 „ 88 „
Displacement 27,000 tons. 45,000 tons.
Paddle, screw, and sail. Quadruple screws.
Speed 13 to 14 knots. 25 knots.
“The _Great Eastern_ was an experiment, but there is nothing of the
experiment about the _Mauretania_ and her sister, the Clyde-built
ship _Lusitania_. The valuable data obtained from the running of
the 20,000-ton turbine Cunarder _Carmania_ has afforded a valuable
object-lesson in adapting the turbine method of propulsion to liners of
the leviathan class, demonstrating the suitability of the steam turbine
to the largest type of vessel.
“The _Mauretania_ is propelled by turbine engines of about 70,000
indicated horse-power, driving four shafts, each of which is fitted
with one three-bladed propeller of manganese bronze. The outermost
shafts are each connected with a high-pressure turbine, the inner
shafts being rotated by the low-pressure turbines.
“The boilers and turbine engines of the _Mauretania_ were
constructed by the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company, Ltd.,
of Wallsend-on-Tyne. There are twenty-three double-ended and two
single-ended boilers, and one hundred and ninety-two large furnaces.
The boiler plates are the largest yet made. The steam is conducted from
the boilers into the turbines, of which there are four.” The turbines
contain about 3,000,000 blades, rotating four shafts, the united length
of which is close upon 1000 feet with a weight of about 250 tons,
each shaft carrying 17,000 or 18,000 indicated horse-power. Under the
covenant with the Government made at the time she was arranged to be
built, she is fitted for an armament of 12 six-inch guns. Her rudder
and both sets of steering-gear are below the water-line, and in the way
of the engine and boiler rooms there are side bunkers which, filled
with coal, are equivalent to an armour-belt round the vulnerable
portion of the ship.
Although the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ are usually spoken of as
sisters, there are some differences in the design. They are the same
length, but the former is six inches deeper, which adds about 500 tons
to her registered tonnage. Special high tensile steel was used to a
greater extent in the construction of the _Mauretania_, making that
vessel something like 1000 tons lighter. Her lines are slightly finer,
and it has been claimed to account for her speed that there is some
superiority in her engines.
In regard to the structure of the _Lusitania_, it is stated that with
the whole structure of mild steel Lloyd’s accepted a stress of ten
tons to the square inch, and that in view of the strains thrown upon
the upper works a high tensile steel of less scantling was adopted for
those parts; a material having been discovered with a tensile strength
20 per cent. greater than mild steel, a reduction of 6 per cent. in the
scantlings was allowed from those for mild steel. The Cunarders were
not the first vessels by many years in which high tensile steel of a
strength of thirty-six tons was used, as it was introduced twenty-three
years ago in the steam-ship _America_.
Whether the great Cunarders pay in the financial sense is known only
to the management of the line, but there is no denying that they are
a great national asset. A detailed estimate, published at the time
they were about to make their first voyages, placed the expenditure at
£17,990 per voyage, and the income, allowing for a full passenger list,
at £31,350.[91] But this did not profess to be more than a general
estimate and in no sense official. The question has been raised in
various quarters whether an equal speed could not have been obtained
from reciprocating engines with a less consumption of coal; as a reply
to this view it has been pointed out that the sizes that would have
been required for the ingots, &c., for the machinery were beyond the
capabilities of our steel manufacturers, and thus, as so often has
happened, the new set of conditions was met by the new development of
invention.
[91] _Liverpool Courier_, November 18, 1907.
KAISER
CAMPANIA. OCEANIC. BALTIC. WILHELM II. LUSITANIA.
Displacement 20,000 26,100 33,000 26,000 41,500
Draught 30 30 30 30 32
Speed 22 20 16¹⁄₂ 23¹⁄₂ 25
I.H.P. 30,000 29,000 16,000 38/40,000 65,000
Consumption }
of coal, tons } 485 400 260 660 840
per day }
Length, b.p. 598 685 709 684 760
Breadth 65 68·3 75·6 72·3 88
Depth 43 49 49 52·6 60·5
Gross tonnage 12,950 17,274 23,800 19,360 28,830
Number of } {12 double}
boilers } 13 16 8 { 7 single} 24
Total cost £615,000 £739,000 £800,000 £927,200 £1,250,000
“The above table shows at a glance the ships that have come between
the _Campania_ and the _Lusitania_. The _Baltic_ shows the type of
steamer that pays the best, going across at a moderate speed sufficient
for most people while at the same time carrying an enormous amount of
cargo.”[92]
[92] _Shipping World_, January 2, 1907.
Alterations have been made in the propellers of both these steamers
with a view to finding the size, pitch, number of blades, material,
weight, and number of revolutions per minute and the other details upon
which efficiency depends, but the result is carefully guarded. Such
tests are expensive.
In 1889 the White Star Company built the _Teutonic_ of 10,000 tons,
which, like her sister ship the _Majestic_, was intended to be an armed
mercantile cruiser. These two vessels, which each took nearly three
years in building, were at that time the finest the world had seen, and
the speediest, and were regarded with such wonder that at the naval
review in 1889, one of them was visited by the German Emperor and the
late King Edward (then Prince of Wales) and many distinguished officers
of the Navy. The _Majestic_ soon brought the record from Queenstown to
New York down to 5 days 18 hours 18 minutes, but this was reduced by
the _Teutonic_ to 5 days 16¹⁄₂ hours.
The second _Oceanic_, also of steel and a twin-screw boat, was placed
in the Liverpool and New York service in 1899. She was 704 feet in
length and was the first vessel to be built longer than the _Great
Eastern_, but in other respects she was smaller, her beam being 68·3
feet, her gross tonnage 16,900 and her displacement tonnage 26,100. The
indicated horse-power of the _Oceanic_ was 29,000 as against the 11,000
of the _Great Eastern_, and her speed was 21¹⁄₂ knots as compared with
13. In equipment, too, she was regarded as the last possible word in
luxury and magnificence. Her promenade deck was 400 feet long, and the
saloon was 80 by 64 feet, the latter surmounted by a glass dome 21 feet
square.
Two enormous steamers, the _Celtic_ in 1901 and the _Cedric_ in
1902, of 20,904 tons gross, again established a record for size; the
latter is slightly the larger vessel, but in other respects they are
sisters. These were the last vessels built for the White Star Line
as an independent organisation, as in the following year the line
became a part of the great Morgan Combine though still retaining its
individuality of management.
The _Republic_, a White Star steamer which had just left New York for
England, was rammed off Nantucket in January 1909 by the Italian Lloyd
steamer _Florida_ inward bound. The White Star liner _Baltic_ took
off from the _Florida_ all the passengers that had been saved from
the _Republic_. The latter vessel was kept afloat all night by her
water-tight compartments. All the while she was afloat she signalled
by wireless telegraphy for assistance and this brought the _Baltic_
and other vessels on the scene. The _Republic_ was built in 1903 for
the Boston-Liverpool trade of the Dominion Line and was named the
_Columbus_, and was afterwards taken over by the White Star. She was a
twin-screw steel steamer of 15,378 tons gross, and the largest vessel
which has yet been lost at sea.
[Illustration: THE “TEUTONIC” AND “MAJESTIC” (WHITE STAR LINE, 1889).]
[Illustration: THE “OLYMPIC” (WHITE STAR LINE, 1910). FROM THE PAINTING
BY CHARLES DIXON.]
A notable event in the trade with Canada was the introduction of
the White Star liners _Megantic_ and _Laurentic_, which are run as
White Star-Dominion Line steamers to save possible complications
with other lines in the Canadian trade. They are important, not
only on account of their size, but also because of the engineering
experiments they embody, the _Megantic_ standing for the highest
perfection of the twin-screw balanced reciprocating engine, while
the _Laurentic_ is remarkable for the introduction of reciprocating
engines and low-pressure turbines. In other respects they are sister
ships. They are the largest vessels yet placed in the Canadian trade.
The _Laurentic_ was launched in September 1908 at Belfast by Messrs.
Harland and Wolff, and the _Megantic_ left the slips the following
December. They are each 565 feet long by 67 feet 4 inches beam, and
about 15,000 tons gross. Each carries 260 first-class passengers, 420
second-class, and over 1000 in the third class. Their cargo capacity
is also very great. They are singled-funnelled, two-masted steamers.
Like all the other vessels of the White Star Line they have been
constructed throughout on the most approved principles, nothing that
long experience and practical knowledge could suggest being wanting to
make them as perfect as possible in all particulars.
The last three or four years have seen the advent of the largest
steamers afloat, and before the end of 1910 they will be eclipsed by
one of the two steamers, the _Olympic_ and the _Titanic_, now building
for the White Star Line by Harland and Wolff at Belfast, which are
to be of about 45,000 tons each. At present the largest White Star
vessel is the _Adriatic_, launched in September 1906 and placed upon
the service to New York in the spring of 1908. This gigantic ship is
709 feet 2 inches in length, 75 feet 6 inches beam, and 52 feet deep,
and her displacement is over 40,000 tons. Besides the usual luxurious
fittings of the vessel, which are all in accordance with the traditions
of the White Star Line--she is in this respect an improved version of
all her great predecessors--she has an electric passenger lift giving
communication between the various decks, a gymnasium, and a full set of
turkish baths besides plunge bath, massage couches, and electric baths.
The hull is divided into twelve water-tight compartments, the bulkheads
being fitted with doors which can all be closed instantaneously from
the bridge if desired, and there are no fewer than nine steel decks.
The Inman and International liners _City of New York_ and _City
of Paris_, steel twin-screw steamers, were launched in 1888 and
1889. These two steamers marked one of those epochs of complete
transformation in type of vessel necessitated by the public demands
and rendered possible by the advance of engineering science.[93]
They had considerable beam and their subdivision into water-tight
compartments was more thorough than in any vessel hitherto built.
Another innovation in their construction was the arrangement of fore
and aft bulkheads in addition to the transverse bulkheads. Both
these ships were of the Inman type with clipper bows and the usual
long graceful lines, but they spread less sail than any of their
predecessors, being fitted simply with three pole masts carrying fore
and aft schooner rig only. The funnels of each boat, which were three
in number, were placed between the fore and main masts. Each vessel
carried two separate engines built on the three-crank system, and the
boilers were constructed to work at the then unusual pressure of 150
lb. to the inch. The rudder was in many respects different from that
usually constructed for merchant steamers, and more nearly approximated
to the type adopted in the Navy, in which, as a protection against
hostile projectiles, the rudder is wholly submerged. This form of
rudder was introduced in these two steamships as they were intended to
be used as auxiliary cruisers. The rudder itself was constructed on a
modification of the balanced system, in which a portion of the rudder
is placed forward of the stock. Both these steam-ships made some very
rapid passages, the _City of Paris_ in May 1889 bringing down the time
of the transatlantic journey to less than six days. These were the
last vessels added to the Inman and International Line. In March 1893
the line was reorganised and became the American Line. This company
launched the _St. Louis_ and _St. Paul_ built at Cramp’s yard at
Philadelphia. The two American-built ships were each 554 feet in length
and of 11,600 tons gross register. They held the record for the New
York-Southampton service for some years. During the Spanish-American
War they were used as auxiliary cruisers.
[93] “The Atlantic Ferry.”
[Illustration: THE “OLYMPIC” BUILDING, OCTOBER 18, 1909 (WHITE STAR
LINE).]
The increase in the size of steam-ships is not confined to the Atlantic
alone, but is a feature of all the great lines whatever part of the
world they may serve. The Peninsular and Oriental, the Pacific Steam
Navigation Company, the Ellerman Lines, all the passenger lines trading
to North America, the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, the Orient Line
and the principal lines trading to the Far East, are all the possessors
of steamers of 12,000 tons or over, though in the case of those that
use the Suez Canal the size is limited by the fact that if they were
made any larger they might have difficulty in getting through the canal
at all. The heavy canal dues, which are already a serious item to the
owners of all steamers using the canal, would be more onerous still
if the vessels were of greater size, and as it is, some of the lines
trading to Australia deliberately take the Cape route so as to avoid
this expense.
Lloyd’s Register’s Annual Summary issued in January 1910 contains the
following on the production of large steamers since 1893:
“The number of large steamers launched in the United Kingdom during
1909 has been less than during any of the previous four years. During
the years 1893-6, on an average, ten vessels of 6000 tons and upwards
were launched per annum in the United Kingdom; in the following four
years, 1897-1900, the average rose to 32, at which figure it stood for
the four years 1901-4, and at 30 for the four years 1905-8. During
1909 only 19 such vessels were launched. Of vessels of 10,000 tons and
upwards only three were launched in the four years 1893-6; 24 were
launched during the four years 1897-1900; 27 were launched during the
four years 1901-4, and a similar number during the four years 1905-8.
“During 1909 six vessels of 10,000 tons and above were launched, the
names of which are as follows:
Balmoral Castle 13,000 tons gross.
Orvieto 12,130 „ „
Osterley 12,129 „ „
Otranto 12,124 „ „
Mantua 10,885 „ „
Ruahine 10,758 „ „
“At the present time there are under construction 37 vessels of 6000
tons and upwards, of which eight are of over 10,000 tons each.
“The average tonnage of steamers launched in the United Kingdom during
1909 is 2092 tons: but if steamers of less than 500 tons be excluded
the average of the remaining steamers reaches 3080 tons gross.
“Of the vessels launched in the United Kingdom 16 are capable of a
speed of 17 knots and above. The fastest of these vessels is the
turbine yacht _Winchester_ (26 knots). The fastest merchant vessels
are five steamers intended for Channel service (two turbine and three
twin-screw vessels), all of which attain the high speed of 22 knots.”
Of late years the P. & O. Company has added several magnificent vessels
to its fleet, of a size and degree of equipment superior to any of
their predecessors, mostly of the “M” class, so called because all
their names begin with that letter. These are _Moldavia_, _Mongolia_,
_Macedonia_, _Marmora_, _Mooltan_, _Morea_, and _Malwa_, and they mark
a new epoch in the history of the company’s shipbuilding operations, as
they far exceed in size the largest previous type as represented by the
_China_, _Persia_, _Egypt_, and others, which in their turn were far
ahead of all the steamers before them.
The _Marmora_ and _Macedonia_, built at Belfast by Messrs. Harland and
Wolff, are each of 10,500 tons, and are 530 feet long by 60 feet broad,
with a moulded depth of 37 feet. Accommodation is provided for 377
first and 187 second saloon passengers. The _Moldavia_ and _Mongolia_,
built at Greenock by Messrs. Caird and Co., have a gross register of
about 10,000 tons, and are 520 feet long by 58 feet broad and 33 feet
deep. They have been fitted for the conveyance of 348 first and 166
second saloon passengers. The arrangements in connection with the
passenger accommodation are in advance of anything hitherto attained
in the company’s steamers in respect to comfort, roominess, light, and
ventilation. All the cabins are on the main, spar, hurricane, and boat
decks, and most of the inside ones are lighted from the outside of the
ship by a passage-way to the scuttle.
The vessels have a coal capacity of 2000 tons in bunkers and reserves,
and have a limited cargo space of about 3500 tons, half this space
being fitted with the most up-to-date appliances for the conveyance of
refrigerated produce.
The fifth of this class of steamers, the _Mooltan_, was built by
Messrs. Caird and Co., Greenock.
The _Morea_ and _Malwa_ combined the best features of all these
steam-ships. They are of 11,000 tons register, with engines of 15,000
indicated horse-power driving twin screws, giving them a speed of 18
knots. The former was built by Messrs. Barclay, Curle and Co., being
the largest which has yet left their yards. This shipbuilding firm, by
the way, claims to be the oldest on the Upper Clyde, and has probably
built and engined first-class mail steamers for as many companies as
any other shipbuilding establishment in existence. The _Malwa_ was
built by Caird and Co.
It is thirty-eight years since Barclay, Curle and Co. began building
for the P. & O. line, their first steamer being the _Zambesi_ in 1873.
[Illustration: THE “ST. LOUIS” (AMERICAN LINE).]
[Illustration: THE “MOREA” (P. & O. LINE).]
It is now some years since steel-built vessels propelled by new
and economical machinery became the premier cargo carriers in the
Australian trade. Recognising that it would no longer be profitable
to build sailers to compete against the steam-ships, many of the
sailing-ship owners decided to adopt steam-power and to dispose
of their sailing ships as the opportunity offered. The principal
steamer lines which brought about this change were the Peninsular
and Oriental Steamship Company and the Orient Line. The steam-ships
of the Orient Line began to run in June 1877, when the _Lusitania_,
chartered from the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, was despatched
from London to Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney via the Cape of Good
Hope. In the following year the joint efforts of Messrs. Anderson,
Anderson and Co. and Messrs. F. Green and Co. founded the Orient Steam
Navigation Company. The service at first was to be monthly, but it
was soon evident that fortnightly sailings were imperative to meet
the demands upon the line by shippers and passengers. The fortnightly
service was determined upon in the beginning of 1880, the company
obtaining the co-operation of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company.
Among the earlier vessels were the _Cuzco_, _Garonne_, _Chimborazo_,
_Cotopaxi_, _Lusitania_, and _Sorata_, which were some of the finest
that had ever crossed to Australia. The Orient Company afterwards
built the steam-ship _Orient_, an iron vessel, and at that time the
largest and finest steam-ship afloat. She remained in active service
for no less than thirty years, and was disposed of to be broken up
only a few months ago, when she was still as sound as on the day she
was launched, her only defect being that she was unequal to modern
requirements. The Orient Company also built the _Austral_, which had
the misfortune to sink in Sydney Harbour whilst coaling. She was raised
again and continued in active service until a few years ago. The Orient
Company for some years carried the mails to Australia with vessels the
ownership of which was shared by the founders of the line, Messrs.
Anderson, Anderson and Co., and Messrs. R. and H. Green and Co. and
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, the line being then known as the
Orient-Pacific Line. The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company bought out the
Pacific Steam Navigation Company and for some years the line was known
as the Orient Royal Line. The Orient proprietary, however, recently
bought out the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and the Orient Company
are now the exclusive owners of the service. New vessels have from
time to time been added to the fleet, all of which are of steel and
propelled by twin screws.
When the Government of the Australian Commonwealth entered into a
fresh contract with the Orient Company in 1908, for the conveyance
of the mails, for a subsidy of £170,000 per annum until 1920, the
company placed orders for the building of five new splendidly fitted
steam-ships which are among the largest and fastest travelling to
Australia. On the Orient mail route to Australia eleven ports are
visited between London and Brisbane, and the journey is thus relieved
of the monotony and tedium usually incidental to a long sea voyage.
Notwithstanding the many calls made, the voyage to Sydney is made in 43
days, or in 33 days if the railway is made full use of.
Messrs. Geo. Thompson’s Aberdeen Line of steamers is a direct
descendant of one of the most famous of the clipper lines. At one
time it owned about 25 sailers of the highest class, including the
_Thermopylæ_, _Patriarch_, and _Miltiades_; the first named made the
fastest passage on record for a sailing ship to Australia, 60 days
from London to Melbourne, and with the others afterwards distinguished
herself in the tea races. Such was the speed and reputation of the
Aberdeen Line clippers that the company did not find it necessary
to adopt steam until 1881, but then they decided to be well ahead
of the times, and on the advice of the late Dr. Alexander Kirk had
the steamer _Aberdeen_, which they ordered, fitted with the first
set of triple-expansion engines that had ever been applied to a
large ocean-going steamer. This vessel was followed in 1884 by the
_Australasian_, and then by the _Damascus_, and other vessels of
the same high class were added as required. How great is the care
taken of passengers is shown when it is stated that in all its long
career not one of the company’s vessels has ever lost a life except
through natural causes. The vessels of this line travel by way of the
Cape, where a call is made. The steamer _Miltiades_, added in 1903,
accomplished on her maiden voyage the fastest passage ever made up to
then from London and Plymouth to Melbourne, and a year or two after,
when required at a few days’ notice to take the running of the regular
mail boat via the Suez Canal, landed the Australian mails more than 24
hours before time.
The old proprietary of Geo. Thompson and Co. was turned into a limited
liability company in 1905, and both Messrs. Ismay, Imrie and Co., who
represented the White Star Line, and the Shaw, Savill, and Albion
Company, Ltd., accepted the invitation to become interested in it.
Hitherto its largest vessels were the _Marathon_ and _Miltiades_,
each of 6800 tons, but in 1907 the _Pericles_ was launched by Messrs.
Harland and Wolff, being named after an old clipper of the line which
in her day was one of the finest and fastest ships ever built. The
_Pericles_ was a twin-screw steel steamer of over 11,000 tons register
with two sets of quadruple-expansion engines, and her scantlings and
fittings were in most cases considerably beyond the requirements of the
Board of Trade and the Admiralty Transport Department. Her length was
500 feet, and her beam 62 feet. She was unfortunately lost in 1910 by
striking an uncharted rock off the West Australian coast.
The first regular cargo line of steamers between England and Australia
was established in 1880 by the late Mr. W. Lund, who previously owned a
large number of sailing vessels. These steamers were started as cargo
boats but carried a limited number of passengers, and as newer steamers
were added they became very favourably known for the comfort of their
accommodation. The first steamer owned by the Lund, or, as it is better
known in the South African and Australian trades, the Blue Anchor Line,
was the _Delcomyn_. In 1909, their largest steamer, the _Waratah_, a
fine screw steamer of 9000 tons, was mysteriously lost with all on
board between Durban and Cape Town. The Blue Anchor Line has recently
been acquired by the P. & O. Company.
The Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, Ltd., is an amalgamation, formed
in 1883, of the two historic firms whose names it embodies. The united
company ceased a couple of years ago to despatch sailing ships, but
the main result of the combination has been the placing on the route
of some of the finest passenger and cargo steamers afloat, and the
inauguration of a fortnightly service between London and New Zealand.
Shaw, Savill and Co. in the early days made London their main port of
departure, and just in the same way the Albion Company adhered to the
Clyde. The joint concern covers the whole ground. The steamers of the
line are built specially for the company, and are expressly designed
for the Colonial trade, and are second to none in comfort, celerity,
and security combined.
The outward voyage of the steamers is via Teneriffe, Cape Town, and
Hobart; and the homeward trip is made via Cape Horn, calling at Monte
Video or Rio de Janeiro and Teneriffe.
The company has played an important part in the development of the
frozen meat traffic between England and New Zealand. The machines used
are those patented as the “Haslam” and “Bell Coleman,” known as the
Patent Dry Air Refrigerators, though in the later steamers the CO₂
system is installed. The Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company, Ltd., were
the pioneers in this trade. They fitted up the first sailing ship with
refrigerating machinery, and successfully inaugurated an industry which
has since grown to such vast dimensions.
The company is one of the largest carriers of frozen meat in the world,
bringing over to this country in their steamers considerably over
2,800,000 carcases of mutton per annum.
All the company’s present steamers are of steel, and most are twin
screw, their tonnage ranging from 5564 in the _Karamea_ to 10,000
in their newest boats, the _Pakeha_ and _Rangatira_. Its service is
maintained in connection with the White Star Line, which supplies four
or five steamers of 12,000 tons each.
By few firms has such an extraordinarily rapid progress been shown as
by that known as Elder, Dempster and Co., of which the late Sir Alfred
Jones was the head. After his death the line was acquired by Lord
Pirrie, who transferred it to a new company bearing the name of Elder,
Dempster and Co., Ltd. The firm originally consisted of Alexander Elder
and John Dempster, who founded the British and African Steam Navigation
Co., Ltd., in 1868, and in 1879 Mr. (afterwards Sir) Alfred L. Jones
was admitted to partnership. Under his direction the firm became of
considerable importance, but it was not until he and Mr. W. J. Davey
became partners and sole managers that the firm progressed by leaps
and bounds and rapidly became one of the largest and most influential
commercial houses in the world. Its energies were tremendous and its
successes no less so. The Beaver Line of steamers to Canada from
Liverpool was at one time the property of this firm, who sold it to the
Canadian Pacific Railway. The shipping companies controlled by Elder,
Dempster and Co. included the British and African Steam Navigation
Company (1900), Ltd., the African Steamship Company (incorporated under
Royal Charter), Elder, Dempster Shipping, Ltd., Cie. Belge Maritime du
Congo, Imperial Direct West India Mail Service, and the Compañia de
Vapores Correos Interinsulares Canarios.
Only a few years have elapsed since the banana was almost a curiosity
here, but thanks to the enterprise of Elder, Dempster and Co., who
practically created the tropical fruit trade and built several steamers
for the conveyance of tropical fruit to England, the banana has become
most popular. The West India Islands, especially Jamaica, have derived
immense benefit from this trade, the encouragement of this and other
tropical products having brought it no small measure of prosperity.
For this work the Imperial Direct West India Mail Service, Ltd., was
established in 1901, maintaining at first a fortnightly and then a
weekly service from Bristol to Jamaica. In connection with this service
there are numerous inter-island services.
The Royal Mail Steam Packet Company in 1905 inaugurated their splendid
“A” class of steamers, of which the _Aragon_, _Amazon_, _Avon_,
_Araguaya_, and _Asturias_ are examples. The largest of these is the
_Asturias_ of 12,500 tons.
In part directly and in part through its connections the company’s
enterprise extends to all parts of the world. It acquired in 1907 an
interest in the Shire Line of steamers engaged in a regular service
from London to Port Said, Suez, Colombo, Penang, Singapore, Hong-Kong,
Shanghai, Nagasaki, Kobe, and Yokohama; and in 1908 it took over the
old-established Forwood Line service from London to Gibraltar, Morocco,
Las Palmas, Teneriffe, and Madeira.
The repairs effected to ships since they have been built of steel are
no less wonderful than the building of the ships themselves. It is
by no means uncommon for a ship to be cut in half, the pieces drawn
asunder, and the intervening space built up. The repairing of the
_Suevic_ by fitting it with a new bow was not the first operation
of the kind. The _Milwaukee_ was similarly treated at Wallsend by
Armstrong. The destroyer _Syren_ lost her bows by stranding at
Berehaven, but the after portion with the machinery was saved and
given new bows by the Palmer Company, the two parts being towed to
Haulbowline for the purpose. The Norddeutscher Lloyd steamer _Hudson_
had her bows so badly damaged by fire that she had to be provided
with new ones. Nor are the repairing feats effected by the steamers’
engineers in mid-ocean, often in circumstances of extreme difficulty,
less praiseworthy and remarkable, especially when it is a matter of
patching a fractured propeller shaft while the vessel is rolling in
the trough of a heavy sea and the work has to be performed in the
semi-darkness of the shaft tube.
The steamer _Norfolk_, in 1906, after her engines broke down in the
Indian Ocean, was taken into Fremantle under improvised sail. The sails
were made of tarpaulins stitched together and the necessary spars were
improvised out of derrick booms.
[Illustration: THE “ASSINIBOINE” IN SAULT STE. MARIE CANAL (CANADIAN
PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.).]
The steamer _Hansa_ broke down in October 1908 in the South Pacific
through the propeller jamming against the rudder stock. After a delay,
the shaft broke when the steamer was 1281 miles out from Newcastle, New
South Wales, for New Zealand. The shaft tank was flooded and the ship
drifted in circles with sea anchors out, under such sail as the crew
could set, while the engineers worked for almost twenty days--night
and day--and sometimes more than waist-deep in water in the stern
tube, till they managed to repair the shaft. Then the funnels of the
steamer were used as masts and tarpaulins were rigged to them as sails.
But such sails as they could set were insufficient and she drifted
broadside on. The ship was picked up and finally brought into port, but
by that time she was able to get her own engines to work and release
the strain on the towing steamer.
Repair work of a totally different kind is associated with steamers
built to be severed and joined up again. The Canadian Pacific Railway
steamer _Assiniboia_, for instance, was constructed by the Fairfield
Company at Govan in 1907 for service on the Great Lakes and was so made
that she could be cut in half in order to pass through the canals to
reach her destination, after which the pieces were reunited.
That a vessel should be built in order that she may be sunk and raised
was the unique experience of the steamer _Transporter_, built by
Messrs. Vickers, Sons and Maxim, Barrow-in-Furness, in 1908. Some time
previously the Japanese Government placed with the firm an order for
two submarine vessels, and a special steamer had to be constructed to
carry them. This vessel is over 250 feet long, very broad and with
large hatchways. When the submarines were ready for shipment the
steamer was taken to Liverpool and sufficiently submerged in dock to
allow of them being floated into the hold. She was then pumped dry, and
after being overhauled she left for Japan.
The most serious competitors British shipbuilders have are those of
Germany. The industry there is of comparatively modern growth, and it
is not more than a few years since all the large steamers required by
German owners were built in Great Britain. All the early steamers of
the Hamburg-Amerika Linie and also of the Norddeutscher Lloyd were
constructed here, but in the early ’seventies, owing to the patriotism
of a Secretary of State for the Navy in encouraging the construction
of warships in German yards, shipbuilding was taken up in earnest and
there are now shipyards in Germany capable of turning out steam-ships
in every respect equal to the best that British establishments can
produce. At first, German competition was not regarded very seriously
by British builders, nor were German owners altogether enamoured of
the products of their own yards owing to the lack of uniformity in the
quality of the materials employed. The foundation of the Germanischer
Lloyd during the ’sixties meant that a new influence was exercised
upon German shipbuilding equivalent to that exercised by Lloyd’s
upon the British mercantile marine. It was not, however, until 1882
that the Hamburg-Amerika Linie inaugurated the serious competition
between German and British builders by entrusting the building of
the mail steamer _Rugia_ to the Vulcan Shipbuilding and Engineering
works at Stettin, and the _Rhaetia_ to the Reiherstieg Shipbuilding
and Engineering Works at Hamburg. Previous to this the German yards
had been constructing small steamers, the first of which there is
any record being the _Weser_, built about 1816, at the Johann Lange
yards. Iron shipbuilding was established at what is now the Stettin
Vulcan yard in 1851 and the same year the “Neptun” yard was founded
at Rostock. The first German iron steamer was built at the Schichau
Works at Elbing in 1855, and from 1859 to 1862 the machinery for wooden
gunboats was supplied. Two iron steamers were launched by Klawitter at
Dantzic in 1855, in which year also the Godefroy wooden shipbuilding
yard, the present Reiherstieg yard, laid the keel of the first iron
ocean-going steamer built on the North Sea coast. The Norddeutsche
Werft was started in 1865 at the newly created naval harbour of Kiel,
and in 1879 was united with the Maschinenbau-Gesellschaft, formerly
Egells, whence arose the well-known Germania shipbuilding establishment.
Without entering upon debatable economic questions it may be asserted
as a fact that German shipbuilding is a State-developed industry.
Little was done until von Stosch, Minister of the Navy, in introducing
a Bill for the establishment of a German Navy defined once for all the
relations between the German Navy and the German industries. Not only
did the State give assistance by the placing of orders, but further
assistance was afforded in 1879 by the exemption from import duty of
mercantile shipbuilding materials, a concession the importance of
which was recognised when the Norddeutscher Lloyd placed an order with
the Vulcan yard in 1886 for six imperial mail steamers for the East
Asiatic and Australian lines. These were the first large iron passenger
steamers built in Germany. Being Government mail steamers, German
material was to be used in their construction as far as possible.
Before this, the Vulcan and the Reiherstieg yards had each shown
what they could do by building an ocean steamer of about 3500 tons.
Several English-built steamers were bought for the N.D.L. in 1881 and
the following years, but in 1888-90 the company had three steamers
of 6963 tons gross built by the Vulcan Company; these vessels had
engines of 11,500 indicated horse-power and a speed of 18¹⁄₂ miles
an hour. In these steamers were adopted central saloons and a long
central deck-house with a promenade deck above, while on the main
deck a dining-room, extending from one side of the ship to the other,
was built. In these ships also German decorators and furnishers
were given the opportunity to distinguish themselves and rival the
British, and they did so. Steam-ship after steam-ship was produced,
each one excelling its predecessor, until the N.D.L. decided upon the
construction of the _Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_ under the onerous
condition that if she did not come up to the very strict requirements
they imposed, the Vulcan Company should take her back. One condition
was that the ship should be exhibited in a trial trip across the ocean
to New York. The _Barbarossa_ type, corresponding to the White Star
intermediate vessels, appeared in the ’nineties, carrying a large
number of passengers and having great cargo capacity. In 1894 the
twin-screw vessels _Prinz Regent Luitpold_ and _Prinz Heinrich_ were
added with special equipment for the tropics. Since then steamers have
been added to the fleet with almost startling rapidity to cope with
the company’s many services, all the important German yards being
favoured with orders. The largest steamer the company has is the
_George Washington_, launched in November 1908 by the Vulcan Company,
which is the greatest steamer yet constructed in Germany. She is 725¹⁄₂
feet in length with a displacement of 36,000 tons, while her gross
registered tonnage is 26,000 tons. She is a first-class twin-screw
steamer with five steel decks extending from end to end; she has
also thirteen water-tight bulkheads, all of which reach to the upper
deck and some even to the upper saloon deck. Contrary to the English
practice, which is to reduce the number of masts as much as possible
in these big liners, she has four masts, all steel poles, and carries
29 steel derricks. Her accommodation is for 520 first-class passengers
in 263 staterooms, 377 second-class passengers in 137 staterooms,
614 third-class passengers in 160 staterooms, and 1430 fourth-class
passengers in eight compartments, this vessel being the first in which
four classes of passengers are carried. Besides the 2941 passengers
she has a crew of 525. She has two four-cylinder, four-crank,
quadruple-expansion engines of 20,000 horse-power, which give her a sea
speed of 18¹⁄₂ knots.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “KRONPRINZESSIN CECILIE” (NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD).]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “KAISER WILHELM II.” (NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD).]
With this steamer and four others only slightly less in size, the
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, the _Kronprinz Wilhelm_, the _Kaiser
Wilhelm II._, and the _Kronprinzessin Cecilie_, the company is able to
carry out its ambition of maintaining a weekly express service between
Bremen and New York.
The other great German shipping organisation, the Hamburg-Amerika
Linie, started with a fleet of sailing ships, but inaugurated its steam
service in 1856 with the _Borussia_, built by Caird of Greenock, who
in the next few years executed orders for a number of vessels for the
line. This steamer was one of the best of her day. The progress of
this line, which claims with good reason to be the greatest shipping
organisation in the world, has been extraordinary. Long ago it was
adopted as its motto “My field the World,” and well it has acted up to
it. Its fleet had grown by 1897 to sixty-nine steam-ships with a total
of 291,507 tons register, in addition to several smaller steamers for
coastal and harbour work.
Its extension in the last few years has been phenomenal. Among its
largest and fastest boats are the _Cleveland_ and _Cincinnati_, _Koenig
Wilhelm II._, _Amerika_, _Kaiserin Auguste Victoria_, _Patricia_,
_President Grant_, _President Lincoln_, and _Deutschland_, the last
being one of the fastest afloat. Some of its larger vessels have been
built at Belfast, notably the _Amerika_, and the _Spreewald_ and others
of her class at the Middleton yard, Hartlepool. In March 1909, the
fleet comprised 164 ocean steamers of a total of 869,762 tons register,
and 223 smaller steamers of 46,093 tons, or a total of 387 steamers
and 915,855 tons. Both these companies, by their direct services and
the numerous lines which they control, are in connection with every
port of importance throughout the world.
With regard to engineering developments, it must be remembered that
high-pressure and multiple-expansion engines were known before 1879.
The little _Enterprise_ was engined by Wilson of London, in 1872, with
a pressure of 150 lb.; the _Sexta_, engined by the Ouseburn Engine
Works of Newcastle-on-Tyne in 1874, had boilers with a pressure of
120 lb. and triple-expansion engines working on three cranks; the
_Propontis_, engined in the same year by Elder, of Glasgow, was also
fitted with triple-expansion engines. Mr. Perkins’ tri-compounds came
out in the ’seventies, the _Isa_ (yacht) in 1879, with a pressure of
120 lb.; and there were a few others. With the exception of the _Isa_,
all the others may well be designated experiments that failed, and it
was owing to the success of this little yacht that the possibility of
the ordinary boiler for still higher pressures suggested itself.[94]
[94] Paper on “Cargo Boat Machinery,” by Mr. J. F. Walliker,
Institute of Marine Engineers.
The _Propontis_, built in 1864, was re-engined and fitted with
tri-compounds and new boilers in 1874. The boilers (of the water-tube
type) were a failure, and were replaced by cylindrical boilers in 1876,
at a reduced pressure of 90 lb. With these she worked till 1884, when
her boilers were renewed. Dr. Kirk declared “that the want of a proper
boiler had delayed the introduction of the triple expansion.”
Plates of five tons in weight and upwards are in common use for boiler
shells, yet in 1881 hardly a firm on the north-east coast would
undertake to build a boiler for 150 lb. pressure.
The success of the triple engine resulted in many vessels being
converted and fitted with new boilers, while others were re-engined.
Messrs. Palmer, in the _James Joicey_, fitted an interchangeable
crank-shaft with the crank-pin on the centre engine, made with a
coupling at each end to fit into a recess in the web. It was seen at
quite an early stage of tri-compounds that the three-crank engine, with
cranks at equal angles, from its easy turning moments, would be the
most satisfactory, and its universal adoption in new engines was only
the work of a very short time. The steamers _Aberdeen_ and _Claremont_,
both launched in 1881, were the first to have commercially successful
triple-expansion engines.
As to how high steam-pressures may go, it is recorded that the yacht
_Salamander_, with triple-expansion engines, had the valve set at 600
lb.
The invention of the turbine has been the most remarkable event in the
modern history of the steam-engine. The following passages, taken from
the Hon. C. A. Parsons’ paper on turbines, read at the Engineering
Exhibition, 1906, give an account of its adoption for purposes of steam
navigation:
“Turbines in general use may be classified under three principal types,
though there are some that may be described as a mixture of the three
types. The compound or multiple expansion type was the first to receive
commercial application in 1884; the second was the single bucket
wheel, driven by the expanding steam-jet, in 1888; and lastly a type
which comprises some of the features of the other two, combined with
a sinuous treatment of the steam in 1896. The compound type comprises
the Parsons, Rateau, Zoelly, and other turbines, and has been chiefly
adopted for the propulsion of ships. The distinctive features of these
varieties of the compound type lie principally in design; nearly all
adopt a line of flow of the steam generally parallel and not radial
to the shaft. In the Parsons turbines there are no compartments: the
blades and guides occupy nearly the whole space between the revolving
drum and the fixed casing, and the characteristic action of the steam
is equal impact and reaction between the fixed and moving blades. The
chief object is to minimise the skin friction of the steam by reducing
to a minimum the extent of moving surface in contact with the steam,
and another, to reduce the percentage of leakage by the adoption of a
shaft of large diameter and great rigidity, permitting small working
clearances over the tops of the blades. The other varieties of turbines
have all multicellular compartments in which the wheels or discs
revolve.”
The first vessel to be fitted with a turbine engine was the little
_Turbinia_, in 1894, and successful though she was it was found
necessary in the two following years to make a number of experiments
which resulted in radical changes in the design and arrangement of the
machinery. The first engine tried was of the radial flow type, giving
about 1500 horse-power to a single screw. A speed of only 18 knots was
obtained. Several different propellers were tried with this engine,
and the result not being satisfactory the original turbine engine was
removed, and the engines finally adopted consisted of three turbines in
series--high pressure, intermediate pressure, and low pressure--each
driving a separate shaft with three propellers on each shaft. A
reversing turbine was coupled with the low-pressure turbine to the
central shaft. The utility of the turbine for fast speed having been
demonstrated by the _Turbinia_, the destroyers _Viper_ and _Cobra_ were
built and given Parsons turbines and propellers, and the _Viper_ showed
herself the fastest in the world with a speed of 36·86 knots per hour.
These two vessels came to grief, through no fault, however, of the
turbines.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
“TURBINIA.”]
Captain Williamson, the well-known steamer manager on the Clyde,
was the first to order a turbine-propelled boat for commercial
purposes, this being the steamer _King Edward_, built in 1901. She
gave such excellent results that the _Queen Alexandra_ was ordered.
The South Eastern and Chatham Company was the first railway company
to order a turbine steamer, _The Queen_, 310 feet long and of 1676
tons gross, with engines of 7500 horse-power. The first ocean liners
fitted with turbines were the Allan liners _Victorian_ and _Virginian_,
built in 1904, each of about 10,754 gross tonnage and having turbine
engines of about 12,000 horse-power. The Cunard Line built a turbine
steamer in the following year, the _Carmania_, with turbines of 21,000
horse-power and of 19,524 tons gross. So satisfactory, apparently, was
the experiment that the Cunard Line next ordered the _Lusitania_ and
_Mauretania_ with turbine engines of 70,000 horse-power each.
After the two torpedo vessels already mentioned, the Admiralty ordered
the _Velox_ and _Eden_, which had additional engines for obtaining
economical results at low speeds. Then came the third-class cruiser
_Amethyst_, and comparative trials with sister vessels fitted with
reciprocating engines showed the superior economy of the _Amethyst’s_
engines. Next the _Dreadnought_ was fitted with turbine engines.
Another conclusive proof of the superiority of the turbine was afforded
by the steamer _Princesse Elisabeth_ on the Ostend and Dover service,
which in her first year averaged 24 knots as against the 22 knots of
the _Princesse Clementine_ and _Marie Henriette_ on an average coal
consumption per trip of 23·01 tons, compared with their 24·05 and
23·82 tons respectively. The turbine boat also does the trip in about
15 per cent. less time than the other two, or, “to reduce the turbine
boat to the displacement and speed of the paddle-boats, and assuming
that the indicated horse-power varies as the cube of the speed, the
mean consumption of the _Princesse Elisabeth_ would be about 17 tons
as against 24 tons in the paddle-boats, thereby showing a saving of
over 25 per cent.” Many other vessels have been fitted with turbine
machinery, including the royal yacht.
The multiple propellers tried in some of the earlier vessels were found
to be less satisfactory than single propellers on each shaft.
The first in which a combination of reciprocating and turbine engines
was installed was the _Otaki_ by Denny, for the New Zealand Shipping
Company.
[Illustration: THE “OTAKI” (NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING CO.).]
CHAPTER XI
STEAM-POWER AND THE NAVY
The steam vessels first built for the Navy were hardly worth calling
warships and were of little or no value for fighting purposes. The
first steam-propelled vessel in the Navy was the _Monkey_, of 210 tons,
built at Rotherhithe in 1820 and fitted with engines of 80 nominal
horse-power by Boulton and Watt. She had two cylinders of about 35¹⁄₂
inches diameter and 3 feet 6 inches piston-stroke. The _Active_, of 80
nominal horse-power, was launched by the same firm two years later, and
in 1823 Messrs. Maudslay began with the _Lightning_ that connection
with the Royal Navy which was maintained as long as the firm was in
existence. Up to 1840 about seventy steam vessels were added to the
Government fleet, the majority of which were given side-lever engines
and flue boilers with a steam-pressure of about 4 lb. to the square
inch above the air-pressure. All these vessels were chiefly used for
towage and general purposes, including mail carriage when necessary,
and not as warships. There was a gradual improvement in the size of the
vessels, and in 1832 the _Rhadamanthus_ was constructed by Maudslay,
Sons, and Field with engines of 220 nominal horse-power and 400
indicated. Her machinery weighed 275 tons.
The steamer _Salamander_ appeared in 1832, and thereafter several
similarly propelled wooden-hulled steamers were added to the Navy.
Between 1840 and 1850 tubular boilers were generally adopted, the
boilers being lighter and more compact than those previously in use,
enabling the working pressure of the steam to be increased to ten or
fifteen pounds above that of the atmosphere. All these vessels had
paddle-wheels. Warships similarly propelled were adopted by other
nations also, but with the exception of skirmishes with the natives of
uncivilised or semi-civilised countries, vessels of this type were not
tested in serious warfare until the war in the Crimea. Even then many
of the British and French warships were stately wooden three-deckers.
Such vessels of the attacking fleets as were paddle-driven usually
suffered badly about the wheels when they ventured within range of the
Russian guns; while those, chiefly despatch vessels and gunboats, which
had screws, were comparatively safe so far as their propellers were
concerned, but were too weak to engage the Russian batteries. Floating
armoured batteries were therefore decided upon, some of which had
screw propellers, single or twin, but from the marine, apart from the
military, point of view, they achieved no great success.
Long before this, however, the screw propeller had proved so reliable
and the advantage of its position below the water-line was so obvious
that the Admiralty could no longer maintain its prejudice, and the
warsloop _Rattler_ was built at Sheerness in 1843 and fitted with a
screw propeller. Her displacement was 1078 tons. Her engines, of 437
indicated horse-power, had a spur gearing by which the revolutions of
the screw were increased to four times those of the crank. The steamer
_Alecto_ had paddle-engines of the direct-acting type, and of about
the same power as those of the _Rattler_. The two vessels were made
fast stern to stern with only a short distance between them to test
the powers of their respective methods of propulsion, and although
each did her best the screw boat towed the other at a speed of nearly
2¹⁄₂ knots. Of course a test of this sort could not demonstrate the
superiority of one method over the other; all that it proved was that
the _Alecto_ was less powerful than the _Rattler_. A similar contest
took place in the English Channel in June 1849, between the screw
corvette _Niger_ and the paddle-sloop _Basilisk_. The tug-of-war lasted
an hour, and the _Niger_ towed the _Basilisk_ stern foremost 1·46
knots. These two vessels were very evenly matched in every respect, and
the test in this case left no room for doubt as to which was the better
method.
The first screw-propelled vessel in the British Navy was the _Dwarf_,
built as the _Mermaid_ by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare at Blackwall in
1842, and as she attained at her trial the guaranteed speed of twelve
miles an hour, the Admiralty fulfilled its promise and took her over
and then renamed her. She was engined by Messrs. J. and G. Rennie. Her
cylinders were vertical, of 40 inches diameter with 32 inches stroke,
and the propeller was on their conoidal principle in which three
blades are used, the surface of which, according to the specification,
is “obtained by the descent of a tracer down the surface of a cone
or conoid,” this giving an increasing pitch. The vessel was 130 feet
long and of 164 tons measurement. Three years later she was used for a
series of experiments with a variety of screw propellers.
Of the many inventions brought under the notice of the Admiralty and
of private shipowners, one which attained a considerable measure of
success was the contrivance patented by Taylor and Davies in 1836, and
known as a modified and improved form of Bishop’s disc engine. It was
tried in a pinnace, the _Geyser_, built in 1842 by Rennie.
In this form of engine the steam chamber is partly spherical, and the
end-covers are cone-shaped, while the chamber contains a piston or
circular disc fitted with a central boss that fits into spherical seats
made in the covers, and a projecting arm placed at right angles to
the disc engages with a crank arm on the screw shaft. A fixed radial
partition intersecting the disc divides the chamber into four cells,
to which steam is admitted by a slide valve. In 1849 H.M.S. _Minx_ was
equipped with one of these engines having a disc of 27 inches diameter,
in addition to the high-pressure engine, and coupled to the propeller
shaft in such a manner that it was not necessary to disconnect the
horizontal engines. With the disc engine the vessel attained a speed 11
per cent. higher than without. Improvements in other engines, however,
rendered inevitable the relegation of the disc engine to the list of
superseded contrivances.
In 1838 Mr. John Penn’s oscillating engines with tubular boilers were
fitted in some of the boats running above London Bridge, and attracted
the attention of the Admiralty. The Admiralty yacht _Black Eagle_ was
turned over to him and he installed, instead of her former engines,
oscillating engines of double their power, with tubular flue boilers,
the change entailing no addition to the weight or engine space. The
advantages of this installation were so great that many other vessels
were similarly treated, among them being the royal yacht _Victoria and
Albert_. His trunk engine, designed for the propulsion of warships
carrying a screw, and capable of being placed below the water-line so
far as to be out of reach of hostile shot, achieved an even greater
success, and in 1847 Mr. Penn was instructed to place engines of
this type in H.M.S. _Arrogant_ and H.M.S. _Encounter_. These were so
satisfactory that orders for engines were received for vessels ranging
from a small gunboat, to be fitted with engines of 20 horse-power,
to vessels like the _Sultan_, with engines of 8629 horse-power, and
_Neptune_ (ex _Independencia_), with 8800 indicated horse-power. Up to
the time of his death his firm fitted 735 vessels with engines having
an aggregate actual power of more than 500,000 horses. Among them were
the _Orlando_, _Howe_, _Bellerophon_, _Inconstant_, _Northampton_,
_Ajax_, _Agamemnon_, _Hercules_, _Sultan_, _Warrior_, _Black Prince_,
_Achilles_, _Minotaur_, and _Northumberland_.
The barque-rigged steam frigate _Penelope_ attracted as much attention
in the Admiralties of the world as did the advent of the first
_Dreadnought_ a few years ago. She was an ordinary 46-gun frigate, and
might have attained neither more nor less publicity than fell to the
lot of other ships of her class. Her conversion in 1843, however, into
a steam frigate made her famous. She was described as “a war steamer
of a magnitude unequalled in our own or any foreign service, with an
armament that will enable her to bid defiance to any two line-of-battle
ships, especially as her steam will give her the means of taking a
commanding position.”[95] She was one of the old French _Hebe_ class
of frigates, of which there were between thirty and forty lying in the
various British ports in good condition, but considered useless, as
larger frigates had been introduced by other powers. She was cut in
half amidships and lengthened by 63 feet, the new middle space being
devoted to her engines and boilers and to bunkers capable of holding
600 tons of coal. In addition to her crew of 300 officers and men, she
could accommodate 1000 soldiers, with provisions and water for a voyage
to the Cape of Good Hope. Her armament as a steamer consisted of two
10-inch pivot guns, each weighing 4 tons 4 cwt.; eight 68-pounders
capable of firing both shot and shell, and fourteen 32-pounders. Her
two steam-engines were believed to be of greater power than any yet
made, having a combined horse-power of 625 horses. The cylinders had
a diameter of 92 inches with a piston stroke of nearly 7 feet. The
engines were direct-acting, and similar to those of the _Cyclops_,
_Gorgon_, and other steam frigates in the Navy. A recess between the
two foremost boilers contained the step for the main-mast, which
therefore stood almost in the centre of the engine- and boiler-room.
The funnel was placed abaft the main-mast, but the paddles were before
it.
[95] _Illustrated London News_, July 1843.
In 1845, Admiral Fishbourne adopted Scott Russell’s wave-line principle
and made certain recommendations as to the lines on which a ship of
war should be built. These were: “the buttock-lines are continuous
curves, to minimise pitching; with the same object a fine bow and full
afterbody are provided. To promote steady steering there is a long run
of perpendicular side, a long keel, a lean forefoot, and a fine heel,
while to insure powerful action of the rudder the draught of water is
greatest aft; the floor rises aft from the midship section.”
But although shipbuilding of the modern type was initiated nearly
three-quarters of a century ago, and iron vessels as warships had
proved their utility more than once in the “affairs” of other nations,
the British Admiralty remained faithful to wooden three-deckers long
after a radical change in their allegiance would have been justified.
It took a long time to convert the Admiralty. As early as 1842 an iron
frigate was built by Laird at Birkenhead, called the _Guadeloupe_,
for the Mexican Government. It was 187 feet long by 30 feet beam
and 16 feet depth. An iron vessel, the _Nemesis_, was used in the
Crimean War and was struck fourteen times by the enemy’s shot, the
holes in every instance being clean and free from splinters. The
Admiralty was not convinced, however, and as late as 1861 ordered
nearly a million pounds’ worth of wood for warship construction.
Other iron vessels carrying heavy guns, the _Nimrod_, _Nitocris_,
_Assyrian_, _Phlegethon_, _Ariadne_, and _Medusa_, were built for
the East India Company at Laird’s. The Admiralty had their first
iron vessel, the _Dover_, built there, followed by the _Birkenhead_
troopship, both paddle-steamers. The brigantine-rigged steam frigate
_Birkenhead_ was 210 feet in length between her perpendiculars, 60
feet 6 inches breadth outside the paddle-wheels, and 37 feet 6 inches
inside the paddle-wheels, and had a depth of 23 feet. Her engines of
556 horse-power were by George Forrester and Co. A peculiar feature
she had in common with several of her contemporaries was that she was
clincker-built below water and carvel-built above. The unhappy ending
of this ship is one of the most tragic events in the annals of the
British Navy. She sailed from Queenstown, January 1852, for the Cape,
having on board a portion of the 12th Lancers and of nine infantry
regiments. She struck a pointed rock off Simon’s Bay, South Africa, and
of the 638 persons on board no fewer than 454 of the crew and soldiers
perished. The remainder, many of whom were women and children, were
saved by the boats.
The honour of being the first British steam iron warship belongs to
the _Trident_, a paddle-steamer, launched from Ditchburn and Mare’s
shipbuilding yard at Blackwall in December 1845. Her length was 280
feet, the length of engine-room 45 feet, her beam 31 feet 6 inches,
her breadth over paddles 52 feet 6 inches, her depth of hold 18 feet,
and she was of 900 tons burden, including machinery, coals, water,
guns, and stores. Her displacement at launching was 385 tons; the
engines of 330 horse-power had oscillating cylinders, and her boilers
were of a tubular pattern. She was designed by the builders. Her ribs
were double, each rib being composed of two angle irons 4 inches by
3¹⁄₂ inches by half an inch thick, riveted together, and in one entire
length from the gunwale to the keel, there being 270 pairs of these
double ribs. The iron skin was three-quarters of an inch thick at
the keel, and half an inch at the gunwale. The skin contained 1400
plates of iron which were riveted to each other and to the ribs and the
keel by 200,000 rivets. Each rivet was wrought red-hot and required
the united labours of three workmen and two boys to fix it in its
corresponding hole. The price of iron when the ship was commenced was
£8 10_s._ per ton, and when it was launched £16. The _Trident_ carried
two long swivel guns of 10-inch bore, one forward and one aft, to fire
in line with the keel, and had also four 32-pounder broadside guns.
The _Greenock_, built by Scott, Sinclair and Co. at Greenock in 1849,
was a second-class steam frigate and was the first steam frigate ever
launched on the Clyde for the British Navy. Her length was 213 feet
and her tonnage 1413 tons Admiralty measurement, with engines of 565
horse-power by the same builders. The screw propeller was 14 feet in
diameter, constructed on F. P. Smith’s principle, and though it weighed
seven tons, could be disengaged from the machinery and raised from
the sea with ease. “The funnel also is to have some peculiar mode by
which its hideous and crater-like physiognomy can be made at once to
disappear, and leave the ship devoid at once of this unsightly feature,
and of those cumbrous excrescences, paddle-boxes, giving her all the
appearance and symmetry of a perfect sailing ship.”[96] Her figure-head
was a bust of the late Mr. John Scott, father of the head of the firm
who built her. The keel, stem, and stern were of solid malleable iron,
measuring 5 inches thick by 9 inches deep. The _Greenock_ was the
only one of four vessels ordered by the then Board of Admiralty, to
be fitted as a frigate and propelled with full power. She was armed
on the main deck, and her model was so designed as to enable her to
fight her bow and stern guns in line with the keel, in which important
qualification she stood almost alone in the Navy.
[96] _Illustrated London News_, May 12, 1849.
The value of private shipbuilding yards able to undertake Admiralty
work at short notice was abundantly proved during the Crimean War.
“In 1854, at the commencement of the Crimean War,” said the _Times_
in an article on the building of warships in private establishments,
“when Admiral Napier found himself powerless in the Baltic for want of
gunboats, it became imperative to have 120 of them, with 60 horse-power
engines on board, ready for next spring, and at first the means for
turning out so large an amount of work in so short a time puzzled the
Admiralty. But Mr. Penn pointed out, and himself put into practice,
an easy solution of the mechanical difficulty. By calling to his
assistance the best workshops in the country, in duplicating parts,
and by a full use of the admirable resources of his own establishments
at Greenwich and Deptford, he was able to fit up with the requisite
engine-power ninety-seven gunboats. This performance is a memorable
illustration of what the private workshops of this free country can
accomplish when war with its unexpected requirements comes upon us....
Altogether during the Crimean War 121 vessels were fitted with engines
for our Government by Mr. Penn.”
Two paddle-wheel gunboats, _Nix_ and _Salamander_, were launched in
1851 by Messrs. Robinson and Russell for the Prussian Government,
which exchanged them during the Crimean War for a frigate called the
_Thetis_, and they were renamed _Recruit_ and _Weser_. They were
double-ended and could steam in either direction without turning.
The paddle-frigate _Dantzig_, built by the same firm for the same
foreign Government, had the peculiarity of being able to carry guns
on her sponsons. The last wooden battleship built for the Navy was
the _Victoria_, 121 guns, launched in 1859, commissioned in 1864, and
discarded in 1867. She was engined by Maudslay with horizontal return
connecting-rod engines indicating 4400 horse-power and giving her a
speed of 12 knots. The _Bann_ and _Brune_ were built by Scott Russell
as improvements on the _Salamander_, and were on the longitudinal
system with wave-lines, and they had internal bulkheads separating the
engine and boiler rooms from the bunkers.
The success of the floating batteries at the Crimea was held by the
French to justify the construction of a sea-going ironclad, and the
_Gloire_ resulted. Experiments in America had shown the possibility of
the plan, but the French naval architect, Dupuy de Lôme, considered
that it would be sufficient to plate existing vessels. The _Gloire_ was
a big wooden ship cut down and iron-plated.
This stirred the Admiralty to activity and the _Warrior_ was
ordered. The launch of this vessel on the Thames was regarded as an
event of national importance, and in spite of the cold day at the
end of December 1860 on which she took the water, the attendance
was exceedingly large, even the tops of the tall chimneys of the
neighbourhood having been let out for the day to enthusiastic
sightseers. She was frozen down to the ways so firmly that it was with
the utmost difficulty that she could be got into the water at all.
Tugs, hydraulic presses, the hammering by hundreds of men on the ways,
and the firing of cannon from her deck to start her by concussion were
all tried separately and then together, and at last the ship glided
slowly into the water. The beauty of her lines was remarkable as she
floated in her light trim, and afterwards, when she was properly
equipped and in sea-going trim, she was one of the most beautiful ships
the country ever possessed. She was iron built throughout, frame and
plating being alike of the metal. She was 420 feet over all, 58 feet
in breadth, and 41 feet 6 inches in depth from spar deck to keel. She
was of 6177 tons builders’ measurement. Her engines, which were of 1250
nominal horse-power, weighed about 950 tons, but her bunkers only held
950 tons, or enough coal for six days’ steaming. She was divided into
twenty-seven water-tight compartments at the bows and stern, and as
the whole of her sides were so armoured as to afford protection to the
vital parts of the ship, it was stated that even if the fore and stern
parts of the ship were shot away, the centre would remain as a floating
battery.
[Illustration: THE “WATERWITCH.”]
The _Waterwitch_ is chiefly remarkable for the trial given in her
to Mr. Ruthven’s system of hydraulic propulsion. A small boat was
fitted with the machinery and tried on the Thames. A vessel provided
with the Ruthven apparatus was built to the order of the Prussian
Government in 1853, and for many years worked satisfactorily on the
Oder. The chief engineer of Portsmouth Dockyard, when testifying to
the Government as to the capabilities of the Ruthven method, said it
afforded extraordinary facilities for manœuvring under steam, and
he saw no reason why a speed should not be attained with it equal
to that of the paddle or screw. A vessel called the _Seraing_ was
built by the Belgian shipbuilding firm of Cockerill and fitted with
a Ruthven propeller, and when tried against a paddle-wheel vessel of
the same form, tonnage, and horse-power was found to have about 10
per cent. greater speed than the other. The testimony of the chief
engineer of the Portsmouth Dockyard resulted in the _Waterwitch_
experiment. The hull of this vessel was constructed by the Thames
Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company, and the design of the engines
and the construction of the enormous turbine wheel, of which the
propeller consists, were entrusted by the Admiralty to Messrs. Dudgeon.
The _Waterwitch_ was built of iron and was of 778 tons measurement,
162 feet in length by 32 feet in breadth, and 13 feet 9 inches in
depth. She was flat-bottomed, broad in proportion to her length,
and double-ended and had a rudder at each end. Her armour consisted
of a belt of plating 4¹⁄₂ inches in thickness at the water-line and
centrally on her broadside, with armour-plated bulkheads across her
upper deck, the object of the latter arrangement being to enable her to
fight her guns over her deck in line with her keel, through gunports in
the thwartship bulkheads as well as through broadside ports. For the
machinery, and in the bottom of the vessel near the centre, was a long
and shallow iron box with its length in the direction of the vessel.
The lower side of this box had an immense number of small rectangular
orifices, admitting water from outside and under the ship’s bottom,
the passage of the water being controlled by valves which were only
opened when the engines were at work. The turbine wheel drew the water
in through the bottom of the vessel and ejected it through copper
propulsion pipes and nozzles, through an aperture on each side of the
ship, a little below the water-line.
The propelling power of the hydraulic wheel is obtained from the
force and volume of the column of water ejected by the wheel from
the discharge pipes, on a principle that a gun recoils on being
discharged, but with this difference, that the recoil from the
water-wheel is continuous. If the column of water were discharged
towards the stern the vessel moved forward, and if towards the stem
it moved in the other direction; if discharged in both directions the
vessel remained stationary, and if discharged forward on one side and
towards the stern on the other, the vessel turned either on her centre
as on a pivot, or if the pressure were greater in one direction than in
the other, in a circle the size of which depended on the pressure of
the discharge from either set of nozzles. No reversing of the engines
or of the hydraulic wheel was required under any circumstances, the
direction and force of the discharge being regulated by a series of
valves. The hydraulic wheel was fixed immediately over the sluice
valves and water-box, and revolved in a cast-iron circular case 19 feet
in diameter. The wheel was itself 14 feet 6 inches in diameter and
weighed eight tons, and was fitted with eleven vertical or radial arms
and blades. The engines were of 160 nominal horse-power, and steam was
supplied by two ordinary tubular boilers. At her trial the _Waterwitch_
covered the measured mile in Long Reach in 6 minutes 20 seconds. At
other trials later in the day she averaged 9 knots.
The shape of the vessel and the fact that she could be steered in
either direction with equal facility were of undoubted advantage from
the point of view of manœuvring, but the trials can hardly be called
successful so much as experimental, as it was ascertained that she
would probably have done better had her nozzles been differently placed
and provision made for altering the size of the nozzles according to
the speed at which the vessel was required to travel. The machinery
itself, however, worked beautifully.
The Government ordered a number of comparative tests to be made in
which the efficacy of the _Waterwitch_ method could be judged against
that of the double-screw system installed in the gunboats _Viper_ and
_Vixen_, all three vessels being of the same size. The two gunboats
were not the best of their kind as they had double sternposts with a
cavernous recess between them and flat overhanging sterns.
Mr. M. W. Ruthven, son of the inventor of the system, it being under
his father’s patent that the _Waterwitch_ machine was built, in
addressing the Institute of Marine Engineers a few years ago, said:
“My efforts to make a ship safe, from an engineer’s point of view, lie
in the method of propulsion. My plans are to apply all the engine-power
of the ship to pumps for propulsion, and which can be used for pumping
out leakage and propelling at the same time. In the largest pump I have
made, 800 indicated horse-power discharged 350 tons of water a minute,
and propelled the vessel faster than her sister ships with twin screws.
The hydraulic propeller is of greatest value for the highest speeds,
and has the greatest power of control. As the hydraulic is capable
of subdivision to a great degree, the greatest amount of safety is
possible. After an experience of sixty years of hydraulic propulsion, I
am still of opinion that it is the means by which greater safety can be
obtained at sea, and by which the highest speeds can be obtained with
safety and economy.”[97]
[97] _Institute of Marine Engineers’ Transactions_, vol. ix.
This, however, was said before such phenomenal speeds were obtained
with turbines and combined turbine and reciprocating engines.
A number of lifeboats fitted with jet-propelling machinery have been
built by, among others, Messrs. Thornycroft, and have given every
satisfaction. Whatever be the advantages of the system, and they are
many, the drawbacks are very great, and the hydraulic method has been
generally condemned because of the friction engendered by the pumping
of such large quantities of water, and the probability of the inlet
orifices becoming choked by sand, mud, or floating matter.
Notwithstanding its evident advantages, the screw propeller, whether
single or double, had many enemies. It was asserted to be the cause of
premature decay in both wood and iron vessels, and stringent orders
were even given to ship captains to use canvas except in extreme cases
when steam was absolutely necessary. “Our screw navy is, therefore,”
said a paper of that period, “more of a sailing than a steam navy.” The
twin-screw arranged by Messrs. Dudgeon was claimed to have developed
the principle in such a way as to leave no doubt of its superiority
over the single propeller. Twin-screws were no new thing at this time.
Captain Smith, known as “Target Smith” because of his movable target in
use on the _Excellent_, had experimented with some with a considerable
measure of success, but it was Messrs. Dudgeon who solved the problem
of twin-screw propellers for ocean-going steamers. They demonstrated
that as good results could be got from two small propellers as from one
large one.
The first application of twin-screws on the modern principle was made
by Messrs. J. and W. Dudgeon in the _Flora_ in November 1862.
Twin-screws were tried by the Admiralty some years earlier in the
construction of the iron-cased floating batteries, but were driven
in those vessels by one motion from the engines. The adoption of the
twin-screw in their case enabled the Admiralty to build vessels that
required only a moderately light draught of water, and carried, for
their tonnage, an enormous weight of armament and armour, besides
the weight of their engines; but the vessels had no increased powers
of turning nor could they manœuvre rapidly under steam in any
circumscribed space. The double independent screws overcame these
drawbacks.
A small vessel in the Clyde worked two screws also, with two rudders,
the idea, as acknowledged by the adaptor, having been derived from the
model exhibited in the Exhibition of 1851 by Mr. John Sturdee, master
shipwright’s assistant at Portsmouth Dockyard.
An unusual degree of interest attached to the trial of the steam-ship
_Flora_ by reason of the fact that each of her twin-screws was to
be operated by its own engine. In the light of future events it is
worthy of note that up to this time it was thought that the twin-screw
would be useful for smaller vessels and gunboats carrying six guns
or less; whereas the _Flora_, as representative of ships capable of
carrying large armaments of guns, with considerable engine-power,
and a light draught of water, and with a power of manœuvring such as
could not be possessed by a single-screw vessel, marked a step forward
in the march of improvement which was destined to have far-reaching
results, both in the Navy and the Mercantile Marine. So important was
the trial deemed that the Admiralty sent special representatives to
report thereon. The _Flora_ was an iron vessel, 150 feet long, 22¹⁄₂
feet beam, and 13 feet depth, and of 365 tons. She had two independent
engines and screws, the latter being placed one under each quarter,
and therefore in front of the rudder, in contrast to the prevailing
system of placing a single screw right astern and behind the rudder.
The cylinders of the two engines were 26 inches in diameter, with a
stroke of 21 inches; and the propellers were each of 7 feet diameter
with a pitch of 14¹⁄₂ feet. She had two tubular boilers working at 30
lb. pressure, and one high-pressure boiler working at 50 lb. pressure,
the latter boiler being intended to be used for producing a steam
blast in the chimney and to dry the steam from the two common boilers.
The engines were of 120 horse-power collectively. She was rigged as
a fore-and-aft schooner. The principal test to which the vessel was
subjected tried her capabilities of being manœuvred. With the helm
hard over and the engines going full speed ahead, the first circle was
made in 3 minutes 14 seconds, the next in one second less time, and
the third circle in 3 minutes 16 seconds, the diameter of the circle
being about three lengths of the ship, but slightly diminished each
time. The ship was then tested with one screw working ahead and the
other astern. One circle was made in 3 minutes 39 seconds, and another
in 3 minutes 49 seconds; “in making these circles the action of the
ship’s hull was extraordinary, the central part being stationary, and
both ends moving round equally. The circle was made on a pivot from
the ship’s midship section. The vessel was then put in a straight
course, stopped, and from a state of rest the engines were started, one
ahead and the other astern, the circle being completed in 3 minutes 55
seconds and the diameter being as before within the ship’s length.”[98]
The _Flora_ proved herself faster than any other steamer of her size
and horse-power, and became, thanks to her speed, one of the most
successful blockade-runners during the American Civil War.
[98] _Illustrated London News_, November 29, 1862.
[Illustration: H.M.S. “MINOTAUR.”]
The experiments in the _Flora_, and afterwards in the _Hebe_ and
_Kate_, which were of about the same dimensions and power, were
considered so satisfactory that a trial on a larger and more important
scale was made in the summer of 1863 with the _Aurora_. This was an
iron vessel, 165 feet in length, with a beam of 23 feet, and a depth of
13 feet 6 inches. Her engines, of 120 collective nominal horse-power,
drove two three-bladed screws, each independently of the other; the
screws were 7 feet in diameter and had a pitch of 14 feet 6 inches. The
cylinders were of 26 inches in diameter with a stroke of 21 inches. On
her trials she steered equally well with either propellers or rudder,
and in the matter of speed passed everything she came across, including
the _Sea Swallow_, one of the fastest paddle-boats on the Thames. The
distance from Tilbury to the Nore, twenty nautical miles, was done in 1
hour 17 minutes, “an almost unparalleled rate of speed, considering the
vessel’s horse-power of engine and hull displacement.”[99]
[99] _Times_, August 1863.
The _Experiment_ was the first twin-screw boat built for the Navy. The
engines were direct-acting, horizontal, high-pressure, and drove two
three-bladed propellers, having a diameter of 3 feet 6 inches. She was
built by Dudgeon in February 1863.
Some interesting experiments were also carried out in February
1863 with a steamer called the _Edith_, built by Dudgeon with a
view to testing further, for the benefit of the Admiralty, whose
representatives were present, the advantages of the twin-screw for
naval manœuvring purposes. This vessel was not constructed for the
Navy, however, but for commercial service across the Atlantic. She was
rather larger than the _Experiment_, being 175 feet in length, 25 feet
in breadth, and drawing 9 feet aft and 6 feet 6 inches forward. The
twin-screws, each driven by its own engine, were three-bladed and had
a diameter of 8 feet 6 inches, and a pitch of 16 feet. On her trial
run down the river with the Admiralty officials on board, a speed was
attained of nearly 12 knots against the tide, and nearly 15 knots with
the tide, the engines averaging 100 revolutions a minute under 28
lb. steam-pressure. The vessel turned a complete circle in 3 minutes
29 seconds with her own centre as a pivot, and then the action of
both screws was suddenly reversed. Their action upon the vessel was
instantaneous, the revolving motion of the ship being changed to the
opposite direction with the greatest ease. The manœuvre was repeated
several times, and the vessel thus represented a revolving battery
mounted with heavy ordnance, too heavy for training upon any given
object by ordinary appliances. The hull became the carriage for such
heavy guns, and trained them upon any given point by revolving under
the action of the screws alone.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “KOENIG WILHELM,” GERMAN NAVY.]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “BADEN,” GERMAN NAVY.]
The American Navy up to the time of the Civil War was not taken into
very serious consideration by the other nations, but in that momentous
struggle the Federals awoke to the need of thoroughly effective vessels
and built them quickly. They were the last to take to iron ships of war
but they more than made up for the delay. In scarcely a year after the
launch of Ericsson’s _Monitor_, the first ship of its class possessed
by the Federal Government, there were built, or building, close upon
twenty of these vessels. Various modifications were introduced but
the principle was the same. This was the turret on the deck, where
the armament of the vessel was placed, it being sought to construct
an effective battery for defensive operations rather than to build a
sea-going ship.
The contest between the Confederate iron protected _Merrimac_ and the
Federal wooden warships, which ended disastrously for the latter, and
the battle between the _Monitor_ and the _Merrimac_ proved that the
old wooden three-deckers had become obsolete and that they would be
perfectly useless against a steam ram like the _Merrimac_ and harmless
against an ironclad ram like the _Monitor_.
For a time rams and turrets were regarded as all-important. The extreme
in this combination was reached in the French ironclad ram _Taureau_.
She was one of the most peculiar warships ever constructed. Seen
end on she looked like a tremendous buoy, surmounted by a turret, a
funnel, and two masts. A side view showed that an immense bow extended
forward as a long ram, and that the turret was situated near the bows.
The prow was of bronze and weighed eleven tons, and projected some
forty feet under the water. Her deck view represented her as almost
pear-shaped, with cylindrical sides, and she had her greatest beam at
about the water-line. She was iron-clad for about three feet above
the water-line amidships and aft, but the turret and bows had 5 inch
armour. Altogether she was about 197 feet long by 48 feet beam, and
carried one heavy gun in the turret.
A combination of three-decker and ironclad ram was the French warship
_Magenta_, constructed in 1862. She had an enormous ram like the
_Taureau_ and carried eighty guns, and was barquentine rigged.
In England, Captain Coles began in 1859 to urge the construction of
vessels of the cupola or turret type, and after the lesson of the
famous contests in America between the two ironclads, the British
Admiralty decided to try Captain Coles’ boats experimentally. He
advocated the cutting down of the three-deckers into one-deck ships,
carrying on this one deck one or more turrets or cupolas in which the
guns should be placed. These turrets were capable of being turned so
that the guns in them could be fired in any direction, and he proposed
that a portion of the bulwarks should be hinged in order that they
could be let down when it was required to fire the guns, and thus
form a sort of additional protection to that portion of the ship’s
side above the water-line, while when raised they would add to the
seaworthiness of the vessels by keeping the water off their decks.
Vessels built according to Captain Coles’ plans, it was contended,
would be floating defences “which would be at once thoroughly
manageable, impervious to shot, movable with ease, and seaworthy. Nor
would they be so monstrous and unsightly to a nautical eye as the
inventions of our American cousins. They would be fitted with masts and
yards, having the one peculiarity of being made of one uniform size,
so that ships of all classes abroad could be furnished at depots, in
case of accident, or ships meeting each other could exchange with or
supply their comrades,” to quote from one of the descriptions published
at the time. Another advantage was that the conversion of heavy
frigates and line-of-battle ships into iron-plated vessels, fitted with
the Coles shield, could be effected at a comparatively moderate cost.
Experiments with the cupola were tried on the _Trusty_ and _Hazard_
with success. The standardisation of masts and rigging was another
point on which Captain Coles laid stress. The cupola system had so
much to recommend it that Sir William Armstrong wrote to the _Times_
endorsing it as solving the problem of working the heaviest guns. Could
shipbuilding have stood still at that period the system would have
been an unqualified success, but the rivalry between armour-makers
and gunmakers was so intense that no sooner did an armour-plate maker
produce a plate impenetrable to existing guns and projectiles than the
gunmakers set to work to produce a gun and projectile which should
smash the armour plate.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “DEVASTATION.”]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “THUNDERER.”]
The steam corvette _Pallas_, launched at Woolwich in 1865, differed
materially from any other vessel hitherto constructed. She was
originally intended to be built of iron, but as the necessary machinery
was not then in existence at Woolwich, she was constructed of wood and
iron-plated, and had a belt of armour to protect the most important
parts. She was rigged as a ship so that she might keep at sea for
a considerable time, the sails enabling her to economise her fuel.
In order to increase her seaworthiness she was made high above the
water, her fixed bulwarks being eighteen feet above the water-level.
She was also designed to be able to fight end on. The engines were of
600 horse-power, and, to counteract the enormous strains the screw
propeller was expected to impose, a new system of stern construction
was adopted whereby the sternposts and deadwood were connected with the
sides by internal iron bulkheads, decks, and flats, and external brass
castings. The _Pallas_ was 2372 tons burden, and was intended to be a
faster vessel than any wooden frigate in the Navy. The fastest wooden
frigate afloat and complete then was the _Mersey_, which once got up
to 13¹⁄₄ knots an hour. The _Pallas_ was provided with Mr. Reid’s new
bow, known as the =[U]= bow from its shape. This bow gave considerable
buoyancy where it was needed to support the ram, but its shape created
a wave forward and thus militated against the vessel’s speed.
H.M.S. _Minotaur_, launched in 1865, was almost the last of the
great sailing warships carrying a ram and having powerful auxiliary
machinery. She had five square-rigged masts, and all five topsails were
on the divided principle.
The German ironclad _Prinz Hendrick_, built by Laird Brothers of
Birkenhead, and launched in October 1866, was barque-rigged, and was
fitted with Captain Coles’ tripod masts. She was also fitted with
revolving turrets, hinged bulwarks, and a sliding funnel.
The _Hercules_, begun in June 1866, and launched in February 1869, was
one of the best specimens of the entirely iron-built, iron-armoured
frigates the Navy possessed at that time. Her ram bow did not protrude
so far as in former vessels and only weighed about five tons. The
armour plating on the sides of the ship weighed 1145 tons. The total
weight of metal worked into the ship was 4252 tons. The bulwarks were
of wood, but below them the first two strakes were of plates 6 inches
thick; next was a strake of 8-inch armour covering the lower portion
of the main deck or central box battery; then two strakes of 6-inch
armour, then a belt of 9-inch armour along the water-line, then a
strake of 6-inch plates resting above the double skin of the hull
itself. The 9-inch plates were backed by 10 inches of teak, inside of
which was an iron skin 1¹⁄₂ in. thick, supported by vertical frames
10 inches deep and 2 feet apart, while further stiffening structures
were also included. The engines worked up to over 7000 indicated
horse-power. The vessel also afforded an illustration of the tendency
to reduce the number of guns and increase their weight. To add to her
steering capacities she had a balanced rudder which was itself jointed
and hinged upon the line of pivot.
[Illustration: H.M.S. “DREADNOUGHT.”]
The carrying of such quantities of armour was against the maintenance
of high speed at sea, and accordingly the unarmoured iron frigate
_Inconstant_ was launched later in the same year. She carried sixteen
guns and was faster than any other warship afloat.
The Prussian ironclad _Koenig Wilhelm_, built by the Thames Iron Works
and Shipbuilding Company, from designs by Mr. E. J. Reid, in 1869, was
commenced for the Turkish Government, and was built on the longitudinal
system, having a series of wrought-iron girders or frames extending
from end to end of the ship. There was an inner skin on the inner sides
of the frames and ribs, as though one ship was inside another. She was
then the heaviest vessel ever docked in the Thames, as she weighed 8500
tons. Her armour was 8 inches thick amidships and tapered slightly
towards the ends.
The year 1869 was remarkable for the introduction into the British
Navy of large ironclads without masts or sails and relying upon steam
alone for their propulsion, and these vessels also demonstrated the
most perfect form then understood of the turret ship as applied to
a sea-going warship of large capacity. The _Devastation_, built at
Portsmouth, and the _Thunderer_ at Pembroke, were the first of this
class, and were claimed to be more formidable than any other warships
in existence both for offence and defence. They were each of 285 feet
in length and 4406 tons, as compared with the first ironclad _Warrior_,
380 feet and 6019 tons, and the _Minotaur_, of 400 feet length and 6021
tons. The _Warrior’s_ armour was 4¹⁄₂ inches of hammered plate that
would break under the impact of heavy shot; that of the _Minotaur_
was 5¹⁄₂ inches of rolled armour, in each vessel there being a strong
backing of teak and iron plating built into the frame. The two turret
ships had 12 inches of rolled armour plating on a teak backing built
into an immensely strong framing 18 inches thick, and the whole was
backed up with an inner skin of iron plating 1¹⁄₂ inches thick. The
thickest armour then in use in the French Navy was 8¹⁄₄ inches and was
carried only by rams of the _Bélier_ class. These vessels also included
an improvement in the bracket-frame system of construction, first
introduced in the _Bellerophon_ by Mr. Reid. The “breastwork monitor”
of the _Devastation_ type was regarded as an improvement on the
American types of monitors. The turrets were mounted on Captain Coles’
system and each turret carried two 30-ton guns. The ships were driven
by independent twin-screws and had a speed of 12¹⁄₂ knots.
In 1870 the ill-fated _Captain_ was lost. She was designed by Captain
Coles and built by Messrs. Laird as a sea-going turret vessel. The
principal armament was four 25-ton Armstrong guns carried in two
turrets, one fore and one aft; these turrets were 27 feet diameter
outside and 22¹⁄₂ feet inside, half the thickness of the wall
consisting of iron plating. This ship behaved admirably on her trials
and also on an experimental cruise, and was sent to sea with the
fleet in September of that year. From some reason never explained
satisfactorily she capsized without warning, and went down in a few
seconds during a gale in the Bay of Biscay before daylight on the
morning of September 7. Only nineteen of the 500 persons on board were
saved, among the drowned being Captain Coles himself.
This disaster evoked such an amount of criticism as to the vessel’s
stability and seaworthiness that no more of the type were constructed,
the turret ships subsequently built being modifications of the
principle.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “LIGHTNING.”]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “TARTAR,” TORPEDO BOAT.]
Armour-plated batteries found their chief representatives in the
batteries of the time of the Crimean War, of which the _Glatton_ and
_Terror_ may be regarded as types, and the double-turret principle
was developed in such vessels as the _Cerberus_. The _Terror_ was
built by Palmer’s for the destruction of the Cronstadt forts. She had
three masts carrying square sails on the fore-mast, and excessively
sloping sides and bluff ends, and would form a remarkable contrast to
the graceful lines of the modern battleship. The _Terror_ was built,
armour-plated, and launched in about three months, thanks to Sir
Charles Palmer’s invention of rolling instead of forging the armour
plates.
The battle of Tsushima afforded naval architects some valuable lessons,
and the _Dreadnought_ and the _Lord Nelson_ may be regarded as the
first results. The Japanese-built _Satsuma_ is virtually on the same
lines, there being little to choose between the _Satsuma_ and the _Lord
Nelson_.
The _Dreadnought’s_ turbine machinery drives four shafts, and
immediately aft of the inner shafts are twin rudders to give the
ship greater steering facilities. The Admiralty adopted turbines,
according to an official statement, because “of the saving in weight
and reduction in number of working parts, and reduced liability to
breakdown; its smooth working, ease of manipulation, saving of coal
consumption at high powers, and hence boiler-room space and saving of
engine-room complement; and also because of the increased protection
which is provided for with this system, due to the engines being
lower in the ship: advantages which more than counterbalance the
disadvantages. There was no difficulty in arriving at a decision to
adopt turbine propulsion from the point of view of seagoing speed
only. The point that chiefly occupied the committee was the question
of providing sufficient stopping and turning power for purposes of
easy and quick manœuvring. Trials were carried out between the sister
vessels _Eden_ and _Waveney_, and the _Amethyst_ and _Sapphire_, one
of each class fitted with reciprocating and the other with turbine
engines.... The necessary stopping and astern power will be provided by
astern turbines on each of the four shafts.
“These astern turbines will be arranged in series, one high- and one
low-pressure astern turbine on each side of the ship, and in this way
the steam will be more economically used when going astern, and a
proportionally greater astern power obtained than in the _Eden_ and
_Amethyst_.”
Messrs. John I. Thorneycroft and Co.’s first torpedo-boat for the
British Navy was the _Lightning_, of 18 knots, but the firm’s _Tartar_,
launched in 1907, broke all records by travelling at 35·67 knots.
The latest destroyers have a speed of 33 knots, though the coastal
destroyers have a speed of only 26 knots. Another remarkable feature in
the Navy of late years has been the number of vessels to be fitted with
oil-burning apparatus instead of coal.
The destroyer _Mohawk_, built by J. Samuel White at Cowes, is 270
feet in length, 25 feet beam, and 765 tons displacement, and contains
water-tube boilers and turbines of 14,000 horse-power, and attained
a speed of forty miles an hour. She carries no coal, oil fuel being
used, of which her bunkers can take seventy-three tons. The _Tartar’s_
record was broken by the destroyer _Swift_, 345 feet in length with a
displacement of 1800 tons, and having quadruple turbine engines giving
her a speed of 36 knots.
The cruiser _Invincible_, launched by Armstrongs at Elswick in April
1907, is a first-class armoured cruiser 530 feet in length and of
17,250 tons displacement, and has turbine engines of an equivalent
horse-power of 40,000 and a speed of 25 knots.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “LORD NELSON.”]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
H.M.S. “INVINCIBLE,” ARMOURED CRUISER.]
The construction of warships has resolved itself into a struggle to
attain an ever-increasing speed combined with offensive power and great
range of action, and warships of varying types have been produced
with startling rapidity, so that one powerful vessel after another
has been evolved, each superseding its predecessor in some degree,
until there are “Dreadnoughts” and “Super-Dreadnoughts” carrying guns
and armour and possessing a speed undreamt of a few years ago. Among
smaller vessels, torpedo-boats, destroyers, scouts, cruisers of various
classes, commerce destroyers, cruiser-battleships, and submarines now
take their places in the nation’s fleet. There is no telling in what
direction the next development will be. The battle of the boilers has
played an important part in the development of the warship, and it is
safe to say that had this struggle not taken place to produce a boiler
which should give a great pressure of steam quickly, the speed of the
warship as now known would not have been attainable. Twin screws are
succeeded by triple screws, and these are to be followed by quadruple
screws.
The second-class protected cruiser _Bristol_, launched at Messrs.
John Brown and Co.’s Clydebank establishment in February last, is
of special interest as she embodies the introduction of yet another
method of propulsion. When it became known that an experiment was
to be made there was some speculation as to whether the gas system
was to be tried, as the experiments in the gunboat _Rattler_ are
understood to have been successful, and it is well known that more
than one engineering firm has been giving attention to the subject.
The _Rattler_ experiments did not prove that the requisite power
could be developed by the method, and the _Bristol_ experiment is an
installation of the “Brown-Curtis” turbine, this vessel being the first
of recent years for the British Navy in which Parsons turbines have not
been placed. She is of 4850 tons displacement and is to have a speed
of 25 knots. Four sister ships, also building, are fitted with Parsons
turbines. The _Bristol_ will have twelve Yarrow water-tube boilers, and
the furnaces will use either coal or oil. Two other British warships,
one an improved _Bristol_, are to be fitted with Curtis turbines,
besides vessels for other Powers, and another experiment which will be
watched with considerable interest is the combination of Parsons and
Curtis turbines proposed to be placed in the 32-knot destroyers under
construction for the Argentine Government by Cammell, Laird and Co.
Foreign Governments, the French especially, have made many experiments
in warship building and designing, for the attempts to develop fixed
types have failed in this country as elsewhere, as the type has been
generally superseded almost before the specimen vessel has been
completed. This was particularly the case with the turrets when first
introduced. The barbette system has descended from it, and in turn
has been subjected to numerous changes. The amount of sail carried
by modern gunboats and cruisers, if any, is reduced to the smallest
quantity, the masts being little else than signalling poles; while in
the big battleships and cruisers the masts, which were at one time of
the “military” pattern and were used as hoists for ammunition, being
made hollow and of large diameter for the purpose, have in their turn
given way to skeleton masts and tripods, and combinations of the two,
of a strictly utilitarian character. The bringing down of a mast,
fitted for wireless telegraphy, at the first round in some firing
practice recently, showed that naval architects have not yet reached
the last word in the development, or diminution, of the masts.
Some exceedingly powerful battleships have been built in this country
for foreign nations, among the latest being the _Minas Geraes_, by
Armstrongs on the Tyne, for Brazil, which represents all that is most
modern in the construction of a warship, this vessel and her sister
being two of the most powerful battleships ever designed. They show,
too, what private yards can accomplish.
[Illustration: THE “MINAS GERAES,” BRAZILIAN NAVY.]
Many of the vessels which defeated the Russians at the battle of
Tsushima were built in this country. Both Germany and Japan, which were
among Britain’s best customers for warships, now depend, entirely in
the case of Germany and almost entirely in that of Japan, upon their
own shipbuilding yards. The Germans have been building warships of
the “Dreadnought” class and making such improvements as they thought
suited to their needs, and of late years have been producing a number
of vessels equal in power and speed to the British ships, and, if
some people are right, of even greater fighting capacity in every
way. The rise of Germany to the position of a first-rate Naval Power
has been rapid, and the sacrifices the country has made to obtain its
magnificent Navy have been great.
The American Navy has developed in its own way. The naval architects
of the United States have been unfettered by the traditions of the
navies of other countries and their products have been remarkable for
the number of vessels designed to meet special circumstances. This was
particularly the case during the Civil War, when all sorts of steamers,
from excursion boats to tugs, were pressed into service, and many gave
an exceedingly good account of themselves. A remarkable vessel which
was expected to revolutionise naval warfare was the _Destroyer_, in
which a special make of dynamite gun was fixed, but it was hopelessly
outranged by other guns. The opposition to steam in the Navy was as
bitter in America as in this country when the innovation was first
proposed. James Kirke Paulding, a member of Van Buren’s Cabinet in
1837, disliked steamers so much that he wrote that he would “never
consent to see our grand old ships supplanted by these new and ugly
sea-monsters”; and elsewhere he wrote “I am steamed to death.”
In 1858 the American naval architect, John Willis Griffiths, built to
the order of the American Government the gunboat _Pawnee_, which was
fitted with twin screws and a drop bilge to increase the stability at
the least expenditure of engine-power. The _Pawnee_ carried a frigate’s
battery, but it is stated to have drawn only ten feet of water. He
also, in 1866, designed and constructed triple screws for great speed.
The United States decided upon a very powerful Navy a few years
ago, and sent a splendid fleet on a tour round the world as an
object-lesson. As it is contended that the life of a battleship as a
fighting unit of the first class is only fifteen years, an extensive
modernising process has been going on. The sister ships _Kentucky_
and _Kearsarge_ were constructed with superimposed turrets, two fore
and two aft, the lower turrets having two 13-inch guns and the upper
turrets two 8-inch guns each, but this method of placing the turrets
has not commended itself to naval architects of other countries, and
has not been repeated in the American Navy.
The warships _Wilmington_, _Kearsarge_, _Missouri_, _Arkansas_, _West
Virginia_, _Charleston_, _Virginia_, _North Carolina_, and _Delaware_
are among those built by the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock
Company, and several have been constructed by Messrs. Cramp at
Philadelphia and by the Union Iron Works at San Francisco.
The battleship of the future, in the opinion of one eminent shipbuilder
at least, will be very different from existing types. Messrs. Vickers,
Sons, and Maxim, who are no mean authorities on warship construction,
were stated recently to have been engaged in elaborating plans for
a mastless vessel, propelled by a system of gas machinery, without
funnels or other deck obstructions, of a greater speed than any warship
afloat, and able to fire ten 12-inch guns on either broadside and six
of them either right ahead or astern, without counting a number of
smaller guns. Such a vessel would be propelled by four screws.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “KEARSARGE,” U.S. NAVY.]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE “SAN FRANCISCO,” U.S. NAVY.]
CHAPTER XII
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF STEAM-POWER
Tugs -- Cargo-boats -- Floating Docks -- Ferries -- Icebreakers --
Yachts -- Eccentricities of Design -- Conclusion
Not the least important of the types of steamers which throng the
ports of the world--or which used to do so, for their number is
decreasing--is the tugboat. Up to a few years ago it played a most
important part in the work of a port; every sailing ship entering
port usually engaged the services of a tug; many ports, like that of
London, could not be entered at all by a large sailing ship without the
services of “a fair wind ahead,” as sailors often call the tug, and in
the waters outside the Port of London the tugboats found one of the
best “pitches” in their business. To be towed safely into port might
mean a saving of many days in avoiding the waiting for a wind. The tug
was equally useful to a ship leaving port, as she might not only tow
her into the open sea, but might even take her right out of sight of
land altogether, in helping her along until a favourable slant of wind
was met. At ports like Liverpool sailing-ship masters often, when wind
and tide were favourable, brought their ships into port under full sail
without a tug, though probably three or four of them kept her company
in the hope that their services would be required, as they generally
were when the time came to enter dock.
Nowadays sailing ships are few in number and are becoming fewer, and
steamers seldom require aid. They enter and leave port under their own
steam and even at times dispense with a tug when passing through the
dock entrance, their own steam or a steam capstan ashore being found
sufficient.
But a certain amount of towing has still to be done, and the tug is
then able to prove herself indispensable. She has often to tow a ship
from one coast port to another, while for rescue work on the coast
their services mean all the difference between success and failure. A
lifeboat is towed to a wreck or vessel in danger. The tug, which has
perhaps been several hours fighting her way forward against a howling
gale and a terrific sea which threatens to overwhelm her, then stands
by, and a paragraph in the papers to that effect is about all the
recognition she gets, yet the perils undergone by the men on the tug
are no less real than those of the lifeboatmen. Year in and year out
the tugs pursue their calling, and it must indeed be bad weather that
will induce a tugboat captain to seek the shelter of a harbour if his
bunkers are fairly full and he sees a chance of doing business.
The feats performed by some tugs are extraordinary. They will undertake
a voyage of a few thousand miles as serenely as one of as many yards.
Cleopatra’s needle, in its strange cylinder ship, was towed to this
country, after being lost adrift in the Bay of Biscay, by a well-known
London tug. Among the most remarkable recent feats are the towing of
immense unwieldy floating docks from this country to South American
west-coast ports; it is not too much to say that a tug-owner will
cheerfully undertake to tow anything that will float from any one
seaport to any other.
The cargo steamer until ten or fifteen years ago possessed no special
features. It was simply a big box carrying propelling machinery and as
much cargo as possible on the smallest attainable registered tonnage.
Such vessels were usually loaded and discharged by the necessary
machinery on the quay side, while if the transfer of cargo had to be
to or from barges alongside, the operation was likely to be tediously
performed by means of a derrick or two, or a gaff with tackle that
might or might not be worked by a steam-winch. The increasing size of
vessels and the use of steel for steamer building rendered imperative
the adoption of faster methods, and the demands for special steamers
adapted for particular trades brought about the development in cargo
steamers of special types. These types have to a very large extent
taken the trade away from the steamer of the “tramp” class, which
wandered from port to port taking cargoes of anything or everything
from anywhere to anywhere. They were usually slow and uncomfortable
boats and the complaints made as to the condition of some of them were
fully justified. The demand for better cargo accommodation was met by
the supply of vessels of various types which are a tremendous advance
upon the old “tramp,” and their advent compelled the builders of
ordinary cargo carriers to produce a better and larger steamer in every
way, and fitted with modern appliances for the rapid and satisfactory
handling of cargo.
The cargo “tramps,” built about 1902, were on an average about 350 feet
long, 2800 tons gross and 4000 tons dead weight. In build they were of
the poop, bridge, and forecastle deck type with main deck below the
upper deck, and fitted with double bottoms. The appliances for working
cargo are extraordinarily complete and effective. To each hatch there
are usually two winches and two derricks, having 5 tons lift each,
with, as a rule, a heavy derrick capable of lifting from 20 to 30 tons;
the last is portable, so that it can be used at either of the two main
hatches. Cathead davits have been dispensed with as, with stockless
anchors, they are not required owing to the anchors stowing up the
hawse pipes. Officers, &c., are berthed in deckhouses built on the
bridge deck, leaving the bridge ’tween deck clear for cargo. Electric
light and steam-heating are fitted to all rooms, advantages not enjoyed
by older boats.
About the year 1904 the shelter-deck type reached its present stage
of perfection, the advantage of this type being increased cargo
capacity on a small net tonnage. The accommodation of officers and
engineers is fitted in midship deckhouses and side houses. Much more
attention is now paid to the ventilation of the holds and ’tween decks,
more especially in coal-carriers, where efficient ventilation is of
the highest importance. The adoption, within very recent years, of
wide-spaced pillars in holds and ’tween decks has greatly improved the
facilities for stowage of large cargo.
The four desiderata of a modern cargo-boat are that she should
have a low registered tonnage in comparison with her capacity,
ample water-ballast tanks, large hatchways, and holds as free from
obstruction as possible. Three or four methods are practised by
builders for attaining these objects, and every builder has made
modifications of them as time has shown the necessity of the changes to
meet varying trade conditions.
The principal types of cargo vessels are the turret, trunk, cantilever,
and side tank.
The earlier modern ocean-going steamers were usually flush-decked. This
left the machinery openings bare in the deck, so a bridge was added for
their protection, and the flush deck was further encroached upon by the
addition of a forecastle and poop. In some cases the quarter deck was
raised, which was an awkward arrangement on account of the change it
necessitated in the structure and framing, and in others the bridge and
poop were joined. What is sometimes called the “three island” type, a
very appropriate name in rough weather when the steamer takes a sea on
board, came into great favour; it consists of a forecastle, bridge, and
poop, and many vessels of considerable size have been built in that
style. The cattle trade was responsible for some important changes in
design, the “wells” where the cattle are carried being given iron and
steel shelters, which thus form the shelter decks, a type of light deck
introduced into the superstructure of most ocean-going steamers.
The secret of the turret steamer is strength without unnecessary
weight. Every ton of steel that can be kept out of a ship without
reducing her strength adds a ton to her carrying capacity. This
object is partly achieved in the turret steamer by the large amount
of flanging adopted in the construction of these vessels. This is
shown in the whole of the sheer strake and stringer plates, in the
deck and frames of the cellular bottom work, and with great success
in the joggled plating of the hull. Since 1895, when the Doxfords
introduced a new method of rolling ships’ plates with joggled edges,
they have built all their vessels under this system, making “packing”
unnecessary. The turret gives longitudinal strength in the hull and
leaves the hold clear. The strength is so great that in a steamer in
which, by the substitution of deep for ordinary frames, all internal
supports, beams, and girders are dispensed with, a clear hold is
obtained. The firm claims that 58 cubic feet per ton dead weight under
hatches is secured against 52 to 54 cubic feet per ton in the ordinary
type. Thus the turret carries more on a given displacement, and having
a lower registered tonnage, can earn more freight and save expenses.
There are several designs of turret steamers adapted to different
trades. Their suitability for bulk cargo, such as coal, or for large
and heavy packages, is evident, while other types are equally suitable
as passenger steamers, not a few lines having adopted them. Another
advantage is that deck cargoes of wood can be carried with perfect
safety on the turrets. Some of the cargo-boats designed for the ore
and coal trade have their machinery right aft, and their holds are
absolutely clear of obstruction of any kind whatever. Many of these
are mastless but are fitted with twin derricks, a 10,000-ton boat
carrying as many as seven pairs. The first of the mastless type was
the _Teucer_. Convention fixed the depth of hold at about 15 feet,
but now a depth of 26 feet and more is becoming fairly common. All
cargo vessels are built on the box-girder system, which ensures great
strength and capacity, and permits of enormous hatchways, and marine
engineers have solved the problem of providing greater speed without
additional expense.
Messrs. Doxford, in their latest attempt to solve the problem of the
easily-shifting cargo in bulk, proposed that vessels intended for
this trade should have inner upright walls fitted some distance from
the hull, and so arranged that when the vessel is heeled over within
the usual range of inclinations of a vessel at sea, the weight of the
cargo and the buoyancy create a restoring couple in all conditions of
loading. The spaces between the cargo-hold and the outer shell may be
left empty or used for water-ballast as required. In some instances
the bottom is reduced in depth as much as the loading regulations will
allow.
Among the more notable features of recent years in cargo-boats
specially adapted for the coal, iron ore, and other dead-weight
trades is the patent cantilever framed type of steamer built by Sir
Raylton Dixon and Co., Ltd., Cleveland Dockyard, Middlesbrough, on
the Harroway and Dixon patents. This type of boat has the advantage
of having totally unobstructed holds with very large hatchways and an
additional 75 per cent. water-ballast, which is placed in the tanks
inside the cantilever construction at the top of the holds under the
deck. In these steamers the space on either side and under the decks
is used for water-ballast, which is carried in triangular tanks at
either side of the vessel, immediately beneath the main deck. The
tanks extend from the coamings to the sides of the ship, the greatest
side of the triangle being towards the cargo and supported by the
cantilever framing; the tank framing and plating increase the strength
of the hull materially. The sloping topsides thus formed prevent bulk
cargo shifting. An advantage to the owner is that the tanks are exempt
from tonnage measurement. When these tanks are filled with water and
also the lower and peak tanks the vessel is seaworthy even if the
cargo-space is empty.
This additional water-ballast has the special merit of immersing the
ship deeper when in ballast only, consequently giving more power to the
propeller and rendering the ship more manageable when light, as well
as supplying unique security in case of damage, for when one of these
boats is loaded and the topside tanks are empty, they correspond to the
air tanks of a lifeboat and thus prevent the ship from sinking.
These vessels in some cases have been fitted with shelter decks right
fore and aft for the carriage of cattle and horses, and indeed would
be suitable for passenger service, for which the very easy rolling
movement would be a great recommendation.
This type of vessel has been on the market for about four years and
already some 200,000 tons have been built. One of the largest steamers
built on this plan is the _Echunga_, 405 feet long, 56 feet beam, and
28 feet 8 inches moulded depth. She was built in 1908 for the Adelaide
Steamship Company. Her net register is 2245 tons, her dead-weight
capacity 8400 tons, and her measurement 11,000 tons. Her topside tanks
contain 1350 tons, and her total water-ballast is 3200 tons.
In the steamers built by Messrs. William Gray and Co., Ltd., of West
Hartlepool, water-ballast is carried not only in the double bottoms
but in side tanks, the inner skin of the double bottoms being carried
a considerable distance up the sides. A hull within a hull is thus
formed, the intervening space being used as water-ballast tanks. Not
the least advantage is the great additional strength the ship is given.
The trunk system of shipbuilding adopted by Messrs. Ropner and Sons,
Ltd., of Stockton-on-Tees, differs from the turret by having a double
wall on each side, and has not the rounded turret base. The steamer
_Thor_, built for a Norwegian owner, has only one hold, no less than
250 feet in length, the engines being placed aft.
Messrs. R. Craggs and Sons, Ltd., of Middlesbrough, have made a
speciality of building tankers, and were the designers and contractors
for the first ocean steamer to load oil in bulk. Their stringerless
system of construction is, they claim, the last word in transverse
framing, and has numerous advantages for single-deck vessels.
During the last three years three distinct innovations in steam-ship
construction have been made. All three are of a revolutionary
character, and two are likely to have no small influence upon the
construction of both passenger and cargo steamers, while the third
is of great importance for the rapid loading and discharging of
coal and ore cargoes. The first of these is the Isherwood system of
longitudinal ship construction, in which the transverse frame as
ordinarily understood is dispensed with, but deep transverse web frames
are placed at intervals of 15 to 18 feet apart and extending right
round the ship, forming both frame and beam together. These frames are
intersected by longitudinal frames consisting of sections of convenient
form, preferably bulb angles, spaced about 20 to 30 inches apart, just
as transverse frames are under the ordinary system. The fore and aft
frames are fitted beneath the deck also, and are spaced from 30 to 50
inches apart. In the double bottom the fore and aft girders are formed
of plates and angles.
The first general cargo vessel on this plan was the _Craster Hall_,
launched in February 1908 by Messrs. William Hamilton and Co., Ltd.,
Port Glasgow. Her length is 392 feet 6 inches; breadth, 50 feet; depth,
29 feet to the upper deck; dead weight, 7300 tons.
[Illustration: THE “MONITORIA.”]
[Illustration: THE “IROQUOIS” AND THE “NAVAHOE.”]
Two oil-tankers, the _Paul Paix_ and _Gascony_, have been built by
Messrs. Craggs and Sons on this system. One of them grounded off Calais
with a cargo of oil or benzine on board, and on being dry-docked for
examination was found to have no damage to her plates whatever. All the
steamers built on the Isherwood plan have a marked absence of vibration
even when running light.
The corrugated steam-ship _Monitoria_, launched in the summer of 1909
by Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co., Sunderland, to the order of the
Ericsson Shipping Company of Newcastle-on-Tyne, is another departure
from accepted ideas. She is an ordinary “tramp” steamer so far as
dimensions and engine-power go; her only difference, and it is an
important one, is that she has two corrugations running along each
side between bilge and load water-line, and extending from the turn of
the bow to the turn of the quarter. These corrugations do not project
very greatly, but according to the inventor, they so affect the stream
and wave action around and under the vessel that a source of wasted
energy is prevented, and more power becomes available for propulsion.
The _Monitoria’s_ dimensions are: length, 288 feet 6 inches over all;
breadth, 39 feet 10¹⁄₂ inches; the breadth over the corrugations
is nearly 42 feet. The space for bulk cargoes is greater than on
her sister ships by the cubic contents of the corrugations, but the
tonnages remain unaltered. As a sea-going ship it was found that the
corrugations made her much steadier, acting as though they were bilge
keels, and that the coal consumption was less, notwithstanding that
she made faster time than her sister vessels under precisely similar
conditions.
[Illustration: THE “MONITORIA”: TRANSVERSE SECTION.]
The third innovation is the application of the belt-conveyor principle
to a collier. The steamer _Pallion_, in which the machinery is
installed, is equipped throughout with twin belt conveyors which,
travelling fore and aft the vessel in a space under the cargo, carry
the cargo towards the stern, whence it is carried on other belts at
the front of the poop for delivery. The latter belts are carried on
swivel booms which can be raised or lowered or moved sideways, so that
the cargo is delivered direct by the belts into railway trucks on the
quay or into barges, and the operation can be conducted at the rate of
250 tons an hour on each side of the vessel simultaneously. Under this
system no shoots are used, and there is no handling of the coal. The
_Pallion_ requires only about six hours to discharge a full cargo with
six men, as against over a hundred men and eleven hours in the ordinary
way. Her water-ballast tanks can be emptied or filled as fast as the
cargo is placed in her or taken out. She was built by the Doxford firm
at Sunderland for a Newcastle Shipping Company.
The carrying of petroleum in bulk has spread enormously of late years
in both steamers and sailing vessels specially designed for the
purpose. In all such vessels the method of the subdivision of the
holds into tanks is of the greatest importance, together with that of
ventilation, and every builder and owner of such vessels has his own
theories as to the best means to be adopted. A later type of tanker
has the engines astern. A further innovation in this class of steamer
is to fit them for burning oil fuel, the two big tankers _Oberon_ and
_Trinculo_ having had the necessary installation placed in them last
year at Smith’s Dock, North Shields, sometimes called “the home of
tank-steamer repairing work.”
An economical method of transporting oil in bulk across the Atlantic is
adopted in the case of the steamer _Iroquois_, which herself carries
about 10,000 tons of oil in bulk, and also tows with her the sailing
barge _Navahoe_, carrying an equal quantity, one set of engines thus
doing duty for both cargoes. The _Navahoe_ is the largest sailing ship
in the world, is schooner-rigged on all her six masts, and is able to
make her way to port in case she becomes separated from her consort.
The floating dock is one of the most interesting of the many
developments in connection with the naval and mercantile marine of the
second half of the nineteenth century. Like all innovations, floating
docks were received with derision.
Now they have proved their worth, but circumstances are easily
conceivable in which all the marvels they have already accomplished
will be far eclipsed by what they may be called upon to do. In the case
of a naval battle, for instance, it may be a matter of impossibility
for a crippled warship to enter a dry dock, or even to get to one; but
a floating dock can be sent to meet the injured warrior and possibly
save it from going to the bottom altogether.
The floating dock is a sort of raft, and the first man who ever hauled
a boat from the water upon another boat or raft to repair, it started
the idea of the floating dock. The first real floating dock, as the
term is now understood, was probably that which was improvised in the
Baltic Sea, so tradition says, by the skipper of a vessel which had
sustained some damage in those waters. He bought an old hulk, removed
the stern, and in its place constructed a flap gate. His vessel was
then floated into the hulk, the flap gate was closed and the water
pumped out. Floating docks of this type were almost the only kind known
up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and are in use to-day
at some ports for small yachts, fishing-boats, and vessels of similar
dimensions.
With the growing size of vessels, greater docking facilities became
necessary, and, as the commerce of the world increased and ports were
developed, demands arose for docking accommodation which could not
always be met, owing in some cases to financial difficulties, and in
others to the engineering difficulties connected with the localities.
As a solution of the problem, the floating dock, as it is known to-day,
was invented. In spite of the opposition with which it was greeted,
the new contrivance held its own, and its merits became generally
recognised.
The difficulties and the cost of constructing dry docks are very great,
and the time taken in the work may run into years; one dock, indeed, is
stated to have taken fifteen years to complete.
As an instance of rapidity of floating-dock construction, the Vulcan
Company of Stettin required a dock 510 feet long and of 11,000 tons
lifting power at short notice. The complete dock with all machinery and
fittings was launched within seven and a half months, and within eight
months and thirteen days of the inception of the project, the dock,
after being towed across the North Sea and moored in place at its site,
was sunk ready to receive its first ship. The Havana dock was delivered
at Havana within eleven months after the signing of the contract for
its construction; the actual time expended on it, dating from the day
the first plate was laid until the complete dock was launched, was six
months and a day. Both these docks are of over 10,000 tons lifting
power. How long would it have taken to excavate and build graving
docks capable of receiving vessels of the size that these docks can
accommodate?
No dry dock can take a vessel larger than itself, and in reckoning the
dimensions of a dock for receiving purposes it must be remembered that
its cill is a fixture, that the width of the entrance at the cill must
not be made greater than the strength of the structure will permit, and
that though a dock may in other respects be able to receive a vessel
it cannot do so if that vessel through any mishap should draw as much
water as that at depth of cill, or if in heeling over, its bilges
should be wider than the width of the dock entrance. None of these
drawbacks apply to the floating dock. These immense modern structures
of steel and iron can receive vessels longer than themselves, and
in the case of the off-shore docks, can receive vessels wider than
themselves.
Should a vessel be heavily down by the head or stern, a floating dock
can be tilted to lift it, and should the vessel be heeling over,
the dock itself can be inclined so that it shall receive it without
difficulty. Yet another advantage is that the floating dock can be
used in any kind of ordinary weather. Lying at its moorings it is head
on to wind and sea. The amount of surface it opposes to the direct
action of wind and sea is comparatively slight. The very massiveness
of its structure reduces longitudinal and lateral motion to a minimum,
especially when submerged. Even with a fairly heavy sea running, a
damaged and leaking vessel can be brought upon the dock where its
weight, added to that of the dock itself, makes the combined structure
additionally stiff, so that the necessary repairs can be undertaken in
safety as soon as the vessel is lifted, and with as much ease as if the
dock and its burden were in still water. Floating docks also can be
used at any state of the tide, but he would be a rash man who attempted
to warp a vessel into an ordinary dry dock with the tide running past
the entrance with any degree of strength.
[Illustration: OLD FLOATING DOCK AT ROTHERHITHE, circa 1800.]
The earliest type of the modern floating dock is that known as the box
dock. It consists of a pontoon divided into cells or compartments,
and having on either side a large wall also divided into compartments
arranged in tiers, the ends of the structure between the walls being
open. The earliest of these docks were made of wood, and compared
with those of later date were of small dimensions. One of the most
noteworthy wooden docks was that at Rangoon, launched in February
1866, and having a length of 300 feet, with a breadth of 90 feet, and
an inside breadth of 70 feet, and able to take vessels drawing from
15 to 16 feet of water. There is also at Altona a wooden floating
dock built in 1868 and still in active use; it is 138 feet in length,
and can lift vessels up to 420 tons register. The early floating docks
were usually in transverse section like the capital letter =[U]=,
and followed fairly closely the form of the round-bottomed ships of
the time. As the girder principle, however, became introduced in
shipbuilding it was recognised that floating docks must be constructed
approximating to that shape, and modern floating docks are now built
rectangular in transverse section, though in constructional details
this form is a modification of the =[U]= shape.
Floating docks themselves are in occasional need of repair, and when
it was found that they could be constructed of a greater size than any
then existing dry dock, it being customary to dry dock them for repair,
the necessity arose of devising a means whereby the repairs could be
made without taking the floating dock out of the water. Sometimes
a dock can be tilted endways or sideways as occasion requires, for
a portion of its under-water surface to be exposed, but there is
obviously a limit to this operation and to the effectiveness with which
work under these conditions can be carried out. This difficulty was
met by constructing docks on the sectional principle, whereby any two
sections of a floating dock constructed in three sections can lift
the other one; while with off-shore docks, which are usually built in
two sections, either can lift the other. An attempt to careen the old
=[U]=-shaped Bermuda dock nearly capsized her altogether.
One of the earliest--if indeed not the earliest--of self-docking
double-sided docks is that associated with the name of Mr. Rennie,
and now generally known as the Rennie type, or, in an attempt made
at uniform classification of self-docking docks by Messrs. Clark and
Standfield, who probably have had greater experience of floating-dock
designing than any other firm in the world, the “sectional pontoon”
dock. This is an extremely simple form of dock, consisting of a series
of similar pontoons connected together into a whole by the walls or
side girders, which run along each side on top of the pontoon, to which
they are attached by bolts. In self-docking, any particular pontoon can
be unbolted from underneath the walls, allowed to sink slightly, and
then be drawn out sideways, turned half round, and lifted on the rest
of the dock. The type is also very suitable for erection abroad, for
the pontoons can be built and launched separately, and, being but light
structures, require no expensive launching slips, whilst the side walls
can be erected on top of the pontoons after they are afloat.[100]
[100] “Modern Floating Docks,” by Lyonel Edwin Clark, M.I.N.A.
The first Bermuda Dock, launched at North Woolwich by Messrs. Campbell,
Johnstone and Co., in September 1868, was the largest built up to that
time, and was ordered by the Admiralty for the use of British ships in
the West Indian Squadron. It was 381 feet in length, 123 feet 9 inches
in extreme breadth, and had a total depth of 74 feet 5 inches. Caissons
enclosed a dock space of 333 feet by 83 feet 9 inches in width, capable
of receiving a vessel of 3000 tons. The section of the dock is of =[U]=
form throughout, though for convenience of towing, a tapered bow of
wood was added, and remained until it rotted off at Bermuda. The dock
was designed by Mr. Campbell. The sides consisted of a cellular space
20 feet in width, and midway between the inner and outer skin was a
water-tight bulkhead, running the whole length of the structure. Each
side was subdivided by longitudinal bulkheads into three compartments,
named from the bottom, the “air,” “balance” and “load” chambers, and
was further subdivided into twenty-four water-tight cells. The dock
was fitted with four steam engines and pumps on each side. Hitherto
all floating docks had been built in sections, shipped to their
destinations and erected there. The Bermuda dock, however, was towed
there, experimentally, and so successfully was the work accomplished
that the towing of floating docks across the ocean has become the rule,
and some wonderful feats of towing have been performed. This dock,
becoming unequal to the requirements of modern shipping, gave place to
the present dock built at Wallsend in 1902.
[Illustration: MODEL OF THE BERMUDA DOCK.]
The length of the present Bermuda dock is 545 feet over the keel
blocks, its width of entrance 100 feet, and it is capable of normally
taking vessels drawing 33 feet of water over keel blocks 4 feet high.
The walls themselves are 53 feet 3 inches high, and 435 feet in length,
and they form girders of enormous strength. Three pontoons, secured
to the lower portions of the walls by fish-plate joints, lugs, and
taper-pins, form the bottom or deck of the dock. The middle pontoon is
a rectangle 96 feet by 300 feet; the end pontoons, each 120 feet long,
taper for 49 feet towards their outer extremities to facilitate towing.
At this immersion the walls have a freeboard of 3 feet 6 inches, which
in urgent cases might be safely reduced by a foot or more in order to
increase the depth of water over the blocks. Its lifting power up to
pontoon-deck level is 15,500 tons, but by utilising the “pound” formed
by the bulwark surrounding the pontoon decks, additional lifting power
up to 17,500 tons can be gained. The dock, without its machinery,
weighs 6500 tons. When called upon to perform its maximum lift the dock
is sunk until the summit of its walls is but 2 feet 6 inches above
sea-level. Water is admitted into the three pontoons and the two side
walls, and from them removed by eight 16-inch centrifugal pumps at a
rate sufficient to lift an ironclad of 15,000 tons in three and a half
hours. In order that the dock may not tilt as it rises, the whole is
divided into fifty-six divisions, each of which is separately connected
with the pumps. By turning off cocks, water can be left in any desired
divisions, and the dock forced to incline in any direction for purposes
of cleaning and repairs. When undergoing its official tests the
Bermuda dock lifted H.M.S. _Sans Pareil_ over 11,000 tons, and after
its arrival at Bermuda it received and raised completely out of the
water H.M.S. _Dominion_, when that vessel was badly damaged through
stranding and was so down in the water as to displace nearly 17,000
tons.
It is specially important that a structure of this kind should be
self-docking, that is, able to lift any part of itself clear of the
water. To expose the bottom of one side the dock is first lowered to a
depth of 20 to 21 feet, the water inside the wall compartments being
brought to the same level as that of the water outside. The dock is
then raised by emptying the pontoons, and when these are exhausted the
water is released from the side to be exposed until the outer corner is
two feet or more clear. The pontoons are lifted in turn by withdrawing
the pins of one, and allowing it to float, while the rest of the dock
sinks. The pontoon is then made fast to the walls at its floating
level, and the dock emptied, so exposing the whole of the bottom of the
raised pontoon. The two end sections can be treated simultaneously,
and floated if required on to the central portion, but the latter must
be moved only when the other pontoons are in position. Electric lights
and hauling machinery are distributed over the dock. A crane capable of
lifting five tons runs along each wall from end to end.
A somewhat similar dock to that at Bermuda, slightly shorter but of
greater lifting power, was designed for the Navy Department of the
United States of America, and constructed by the Maryland Steel Company
at Baltimore, and stationed at Algiers near New Orleans. Its length is
525 feet over blocks, its entrance 100 feet, and its lifting power up
to pontoon-deck level no less than 18,000 tons, making it as regards
lifting power then the most powerful dock in the world. This lifting
could be increased to 20,000 tons by using the “pound.” Its hull weight
is 5850 tons.
[Illustration: SELF-DOCKING OF THE BERMUDA DOCK (WELL HEELED).]
[Illustration: BERMUDA DOCK: CENTRE PONTOON SELF-DOCKED]
It is interesting to note the different methods adopted by the
Governments of the two countries for the shoring or berthing of the
ships on the dock. The English custom in the case of ironclads of the
pre-_Dreadnought_ era, and also that of Italy and Japan, is to support
the armour belt on more or less vertical shores inserted under an
angle-iron firmly attached to the belt.
These shores are put into position as the ship is rising, and, as the
water recedes, more and more shores are inserted. The Bermuda dock
has large and heavy altars constructed for this purpose. The American
custom is to strengthen the bilges of their ironclads with strong bilge
docking keels, forming, with the keel proper, a level bottom. No shores
are required beyond those necessary to centre the vessel, and no great
care is required in adjusting the berth, and one set of bilge blocks
does for all sizes of vessels. The American plan affords a great saving
in weight and quantity of shores, and, what is more important, a great
saving in time, not only in the preparation of the berth and centreing
of the ship, but also in the actual lifting. With the American plan it
would be perfectly feasible to dock a vessel completely in the time
required to centre and adjust her with shores disposed according to
English practice.
The Penarth Floating Dock was constructed in 1909 at Wallsend to the
order of the Penarth Ship Building and Ship Repairing Company, Ltd.
The dock is of the off-shore or single-walled type, and is one of
the finest of its kind. It has an over-all length of about 380 feet,
an extreme width of 75 feet, and is capable of accommodating vessels
having a beam of 55 feet, with a draught of water up to 18 feet, and
a displacement of 4200 tons. Its pumping machinery consists of four
centrifugal pumps and engines, for which steam is supplied by two large
Babcock and Wilcox boilers, working at 160 lb. pressure. This plant
can lift a vessel of 7000 tons dead weight in three-quarters of an
hour. For self-docking, the dock is divided transversely into two equal
portions, each with its own pumping plant, so that either section can
be docked by the other portion. A powerful steam capstan is fitted at
each end of the top wall to assist in warping vessels into position
when lifting or otherwise. It has eight mechanical side shores in
addition to the usual accessories for facilitating the rapid handling
of vessels, such as bilge shores, roller fenders, rubbing timbers, and
bollards. A duplex reciprocating pump, with a capacity of about 100
tons per hour, has a connection to the main drain of the dock, and
enables practically the whole of the water to be pumped out of the
dock. On the delivery side the pump is connected to a service-pipe,
which has connections at intervals for 3-inch delivery hose. The pump
is capable of throwing three jets of water to a height of 40 feet.
To enable this floating dock to enter the wet dock in which it was to
work, the entrance to which is several feet less than the width of the
dock, a joint was provided running the whole length of the pontoon. On
arrival of the dock in Penarth roads this joint was disconnected, and
the separate sections towed into the wet dock, and reconnected, and the
necessary attachment made to the quay wall.
[Illustration: BOLTED SECTIONAL DOCK LIFTING A VESSEL.]
The Callao floating dock, the towing of which to its destination from
the Tyne was the most hazardous towing feat ever accomplished, merits
special attention, both on account of the completeness of its equipment
and of the extraordinary interest which was manifested in its journey.
It is one of the double-sided self-docking type, known as “bolted
sectional,” and is divided into three separate portions. It is capable
of lifting vessels having a displacement of 7000 tons, but it is so
designed that this lifting capacity may be increased to 9500 tons at
some future period by the addition of a fourth section, making the
over-all length about 510 feet, the present length being 385 feet.
Its extreme width, _i.e._, the clearance between the rubbing fenders,
is 70 feet, and the draught over keel blocks is sufficient to take
vessels drawing 22 feet. As in previous floating docks built on the
Clark and Standfield principle, each section has its own independent
pumping machinery and steam-supply. Such usual accessories as keel
and bilge blocks, mechanical side shores, rubbing timbers, flying
gangways, head capstans, &c., are supplied, and there is also a heavy
mooring outfit of anchors and cables. The dock was launched in June
1908, and at that time satisfactorily completed a self-docking trial by
lifting one of the end pontoons alongside the Wallsend shipyard. For
this purpose the three sections of the dock were disconnected, and the
two end sections were turned round end for end, so that their points
came opposite to the central section which is square-ended. They were
then lowered under the water and drawn in under the central section.
On pumping out the end sections they rose, bringing up with them the
central section, which was then resting on their pointed ends. The dock
left the Tyne on August 20 of that year, in charge of the powerful
Dutch tugs _Roodezee_ and _Zwartezee_, each of which has an indicated
horse-power of 1500, their bunker capacity being 650 tons and 600
tons respectively. The dock in its journey to Callao was manned by a
captain, mate, engineer, and nine sailors.
It was fastened to the tugs by extra superior Manila ropes of 18
inches, with 30 fathoms of flexible steel wires of 4¹⁄₂ inches
circumference on both ends, while each tug had on board a new spare
rope of precisely the same size and quality. One tug broke down on the
way, and another had to be sent to Monte Video to take her place.
The time taken on the journey was 225 days, but after deducting the
delays in the Thames and at Monte Video, the time occupied on the
passage was only a little over four months.
The long voyage down the Atlantic, culminating in the passage of the
dreaded Straits of Magellan, caused the vessel to be kept upon the
marine reinsurance list almost from start to finish.
The distance from the Tyne to Callao does not represent a world’s
record for a tow of this nature, inasmuch as it has been exceeded by
the Dewey Dock built by the Maryland Steel Company of Baltimore for the
United States Government, which, in the summer of 1906, was towed from
America to the Philippines, a distance of 13,089 miles, in 150 days.
Great Britain, though a large builder and the principal designer of
floating docks, does not possess very many; possibly the number and
excellence of the dry docks scattered round her coasts may be the
explanation. But as dry docks are costly to make or alter, the British
Admiralty has ordered the construction at Wallsend of a floating dock
which will take the largest battleship afloat or likely to be built
for some years to come. In anticipation of the possible needs of the
mercantile marine, plans have been prepared for a floating dock with a
lifting power of 45,000 tons.
The largest floating dock in existence at present is at Hamburg, which
has a better equipment in this respect than any other port in the
world. It was built by Messrs. Blohm and Voss, the shipbuilders, for
their own use, and was completed last year and can lift 35,000 tons.
Hamburg has altogether eighteen iron and steel floating docks. Bremen
has three large floating docks, two of which, if used together, have a
lifting power of 3300 tons. The third dock, 385 feet long by 83 feet
inside measurement, can lift a vessel of 10,500 tons.
Other countries also have provided themselves with floating docks;
indeed there are few nations of any importance which have not several
floating docks, modern in type, of great lifting power, and thoroughly
equipped. A few, like Austria, reserve the docks for naval purposes
only.
[Illustration: THE “BAIKAL.”]
[Illustration: THE CARTAGENA DOCK.]
The life of the iron or steel floating dock of whatever type is likely
to be far longer, if care be taken of the structure, than might at
first be supposed. Rennie’s Cartagena dock, built of iron in 1859, was
in such splendid condition when the proposal was made to build a Havana
dock that as a counter-proposal it was suggested to send the Cartagena
dock there. The _Nicolaieff_ built in 1876, has been uninterruptedly
employed ever since in lifting the vessels of the Russian Navy. The
Victoria Dock is 310 feet in length, and of the hydraulic-lift type,
with a lifting power of 3000 tons, and has nine pontoons or trays of
a total length of 2185 feet, and an aggregate lifting power of 17,060
tons; the pontoons were constructed between 1857 and 1876, the largest
of them being of 5000 tons. The Malta dock, also of the hydraulic type,
is 340 feet in length, with a lifting power of 4000 tons, and was built
in 1871. It has two pontoons of 4000 and 2500 tons respectively. The
hydraulic floating dock at Bombay, built in 1872, was rather larger,
being 400 feet in length with a lifting power of 8000 tons, its pontoon
of the same length lifting 6500 tons. These lifts were designed by the
late Edwin Clark, M.I.C.E., who introduced floating docks from which
the present types have directly sprung. These hydraulic docks are no
longer at work.
The carrying of railway trains by ferry-steamers across stretches
of water too large to be bridged over is no new thing, there being
several such in the United States and Canada. Many of the vessels thus
employed are of considerable size. These waters are comparatively
landlocked, and the traffic, except in unusually stormy weather, is
seldom interrupted. The American ferry-boats are double-ended, so that
a train can enter at one end and leave at the other after crossing the
water, the ends of the ferry-boat and of the pier supporting the shore
lines being constructed to fit exactly. Most of the modern American
ferry-boats taking railway trains have two, three, or four sets of
rails on their decks, and accommodate their passengers on a deck above,
where the saloons and cabins are situated. Where the railway-level is
different on the two sides of the water, the boat or the landing-stage
is provided with hoisting machinery which raises the train to the
desired level, a truck or two or a passenger coach at a time.
The nature of the work these railway ferry-steamers have to perform,
and the fact that every one has to be built to suit the special
conditions of the ferriage where it is to be employed, make it
inevitable that no two of them are alike, except such as may be sister
vessels employed on the same station. In Russia the conditions are very
difficult. The current of the River Volga is swift, the height of the
water-level varies as much as 45 feet, and as the ice is frequently
two feet in thickness the work of maintaining the ferry is not to be
undertaken lightly. The vessel by which the service is performed was
built by Messrs. Armstrong, Mitchell and Co. To enable it to be sent
to its destination it was constructed in four parts, so that it would
pass through the Marinsky Canal to get to the Volga. The boat is 252
feet long by 55 feet 6 inches broad, and 14 feet 6 inches deep. It has
four lines of rails, converging at the bow into two, and altogether
can accommodate twenty-four trucks. At the bow is a high framework
for a hydraulic hoist which lifts the trucks between the deck and the
rails ashore, a distance of 25 feet, the difficulty of negotiating the
remaining portion of the difference in the level being overcome by
there being two levels of rails on the landing-stage. The propelling
machinery, of the surface-condensing type with twin screws, gives
the vessel a speed of nine knots an hour. The bronze propellers are
unusually strong and heavy to withstand blows from the ice in the
river; the actual ice-breaking to keep the passage clear is performed
by another steamer.
A ferry-steamer of a different type is that which plies across Lake
Baikal in Central Asia in connection with the Transasiatic Railway.
As the lake is frozen over for nearly half the year and the vessel
has to do duty as an icebreaker as well, the hull has been made
extraordinarily strong and heavy. The stem and stern are of massive
steel castings. The vessel, which is of steel throughout, is 290 feet
in length by 57 feet beam, and the draught of water is rather over 18
feet. The hull bears an outer plate an inch thick and 9 feet wide,
placed from end to end along the water-line as a further protection
against the friction of the ice. The vessel is also subdivided
extensively into water-tight compartments in addition to the usual
bulkheads. Over the railway deck are large and sumptuous public and
private staterooms. Three sets of triple-expansion engines have been
installed with boilers working at a pressure of 160 lb.; there are twin
propellers at the stern, and a third propeller at the bow.
This vessel is also remarkable as being probably the most rapidly
constructed vessel of her size in existence. Not six months elapsed
from the time the order was received until the steamer was built,
unbuilt, and packed on board a steamer ready for departure to Russia,
this including also the making of the engines. The packages were
conveyed as far as possible along the Siberian Railway and thence by
sledges to Lake Baikal, where the ship was re-erected.
The only sea-going railway ferry-steamer in existence is the _Drottning
Victoria_, launched in January 1909 from the Neptune Works of Messrs.
Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., to the order of the Royal
Administration of the Swedish State Railways. She was built to ferry
trains across the Baltic, between Sassnitz in Germany and Trelleborg
in Sweden, a distance of 65 nautical miles. High sea-going qualities
were necessary as the voyage is occasionally a very rough one. The
vessel is 354 feet in length by over 50 feet beam, and is propelled
by twin-screw triple-expansion engines, supplied with steam from four
large boilers working under Howden’s system of forced draught. The
trains are carried on two tracks on the car deck, occupying nearly the
whole surface of the deck. Above and below this deck is very luxurious
passenger accommodation. The vessel has been designed to be very steady
at sea, and has unusually large bilge keels fitted to minimise the
rolling. Spring buffers and other necessary appliances are arranged
to prevent the cars from moving when at sea. A bow rudder is fitted
as well as the stern rudder, and both are controlled by steam from
the captain’s bridge. The steamer has been divided into a very large
number of water-tight compartments, which, with the bulkhead doors with
which she is fitted, render her practically unsinkable. She is also to
be fitted with a submarine signal installation. The ventilating and
heating are ensured by an installation of thermo tanks, enabling fresh,
warm air to be forced into all the rooms in winter and fresh cool air
in summer. Her speed is over 16 knots per hour, and the journey is made
within four hours.
The performances of this boat are being watched with no small amount
of interest, as it has been suggested that if she should prove equal
to all requirements a modification of this form of steamer might be
successful in the cross-Channel service between Dover and Calais, or
other ports on either side of the English Channel.
[Illustration: _Photo. Frank & Sons, South Shields._
THE “DROTTNING VICTORIA.”]
Ferry-boats of other types exist by the score, from barges upwards,
propelled by an extraordinary assortment of contrivances, some of the
older and quainter of which have been referred to in an earlier portion
of this book. The historic Tyne ferries were withdrawn not long since
for financial reasons, but an attempt is being made to restart them.
The ferries at Glasgow and over the Mersey have each their own special
features, and even the Thames has not always been without penny
steamers. The Thames Steamboat Company and other organisations have
made the experiment. The later effort of the London County Council to
establish a service deserved a better fate, for the boats were well
built and the engines were compact and powerful for their size.
The necessity of keeping open waterways which Nature wishes to close
annually by freezing over, led to the invention of a species of
vessel planned with that object. The most famous ice-breaker is the
_Ermack_, launched in 1899 by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co. for
the Russian Government, for which she was designed by Vice-Admiral
Makaroff. Many of the harbours of northern Europe are frozen over for
the greater part, and sometimes the whole, of the winter, to such an
extent that the ice attains a thickness of several feet; and navigation
is at a standstill so far as those ports are concerned. The only way of
keeping a channel open is to prevent the ice from freezing too thickly
to permit of the passage of vessels, and this is done by keeping a
vessel moving frequently up and down the channel to break the ice
before it can freeze so thickly as to become impassable.
An ice-breaking ship, to perform its allotted task, must be both
weighty and powerful, and capable of travelling at a speed sufficient
to give her the required momentum so that she may break the ice by the
sheer force of the blow she delivers when she rams it, and she must
be strong enough to inflict and not sustain damage by the collision.
Further, besides cracking the ice into fragments weighing a few score
tons apiece, she must be able to slide upon the ice and crush it by
sheer weight. The _Ermack_ is 305 feet long, 71 feet beam, and 42
feet 6 inches deep. She had three screws aft and, when first built,
had a fourth screw forward, the forefoot being considerably cut away
to allow it to operate between the stem and keel. The idea was that
the forward screw would agitate the water under the ice about to be
struck and thus lessen the support the ice received from the water,
and that it would also prevent an accumulation of ice under the ship’s
bottom by creating a current of water towards the stern where the after
propellers would throw the ice astern of the ship. This screw was found
to be less useful than was expected, or rather it was discovered in
practice that as good results could be obtained without it as with
it in dealing with the massive Arctic ice, or any ice over a certain
thickness, and when the ship was sent back to her builders a few years
later to be lengthened, the forward propeller was taken out and not
replaced. When the alterations were made the bow was severed in dry
dock, and another bow having been built it was launched and floated
into the dock and attached to the vessel. This bow is of a different
shape from the other and has proved to be even more effective than the
old one. Three screws aft are necessary in an ice-breaker of this size
in order to give the power for the proper performance of her duties
and also to enable her to be steered in very limited areas, greater
steering facilities being obtainable by this means than by any other.
The _Ermack_ is fitted with three sets of triple-expansion machinery,
having cylinders 25 inches, 39 inches, and 64 inches diameter, with a
42-inch stroke of piston, working at a pressure of 160 lb. The boilers
are six in number, 15 feet in diameter by 20 feet long, working under
forced draught. The machinery develops about 10,000 horse-power.
One of the _Ermack’s_ feats was to rescue the coast defence armour-clad
_General Admiral Apraxine_, which had got frozen in after stranding in
the Baltic.
She finds no insuperable difficulty in smashing her way through ice 12
or 13 feet in thickness. The first piece of ice she ever attacked was
drift ice about five feet thick, through which she went easily with
her engines giving her little more than half-speed. The most serious
test was against ice estimated at 25 feet thick, consisting of 5 feet
of field ice, 9 feet of pack ice above it, and ice 11 feet thick, and
perhaps more, below the field ice. Thick snow on top of thick field ice
forms the most serious obstacle, the snow forming an immense cushion
or ridge which becomes worse the more an effort is made to get through
it. On another occasion she made her way by ramming through ice 34 feet
in thickness. Another experience was to rescue eight of nine steamers
which were nipped in the ice; the ninth was so badly squeezed by the
ice that she sank before the _Ermack_ could force her way to her.
A smaller ice-breaker, the _Sampo_, built by the same firm for Finland,
has gone through sheet ice 12 inches thick at a speed of 8¹⁄₂ knots,
and frequently through drift ice 10 or 12 feet thick.
On the other side of the Atlantic, whenever a severe winter is
experienced, many of the Canadian and United States lake and coast
ports are only kept open by means of ice-breaking ferry-steamers. Of
the latter type is the _Scotia_, built by Armstrong, Whitworth and Co.
for the carriage of railway trains across the Straits of Canso to and
from Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. She is 282 feet in length, and on
the rails laid on her decks she is capable of taking a load of nine
Pullman cars, and can also accommodate an express locomotive and tender
weighing as much as 118 tons. She has an ice-breaking propeller and a
rudder at each end, and has two sets of triple-expansion engines of
1200 horse-power each. Her speed is rather over twelve knots.
About four years ago the ice-breaking and surveying steamer _Lady Grey_
was launched by Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim at Barrow-in-Furness
for the Canadian Government, and performed some exceedingly effective
work, particularly in the St. Lawrence River or in duties associated
with the Marine and Fisheries Board. A larger and faster vessel being
required, the builders were asked to provide a steamer which, while
preserving all the qualities of an ice-breaker, should yet be able to
attain a speed of seventeen knots, and be capable of use for a variety
of purposes. The _Earl Grey_ was launched in June 1909, and besides
fulfilling these requirements has been engaged in the passenger traffic
across the Northumberland Straits. She has been fitted with special
quarters, enabling her to be employed as an official yacht by the
Governor-General. Provided with a cut-water or schooner stem with a
short bowsprit, an elliptical stern, and two steel pole schooner-rigged
masts, which rake considerably, and having been designed with a
graceful sheer, she has more of the appearance of a large yacht than
an ice-breaker intended to be able to make her passages in all sorts
of weather and under widely varying conditions. The hull is built with
extraordinary strength; the frames are very closely spaced in order to
take up the thrust of the pack ice which in winter may sometimes be
piled round the vessel; the shell plating is of unusual thickness, and
the outer skin is double right fore and aft along the water-line and to
the bottom of the keel in the fore body, where the friction of the ice
tends in the case of ice-breaking steamers to wear away the material.
The ordinary practice of this and all other ice-breakers, in whatever
part of the world, is to utilise their weight to break the ice by
rising upon it and crushing it. In order to possess as great a weight
as possible, large tanks are built into the fore part of the _Earl
Grey_ which can be filled or emptied at a rate of 250 tons an hour.
The vessel is also equipped for breaking ice when going astern, the
counter having been suitably strengthened to resist the shocks; while
to secure the rudder from injury it has been built into the form of the
ship so that her movements are not impeded by the ice-floes. The _Earl
Grey_ is 250 feet in length, 47 feet 6 inches beam, 17 feet 7 inches
depth, and 3400 tons displacement. She has accommodation for fifty
first-class passengers and twenty in the second class, and under
these circumstances winter ice-breaking excursions may yet become the
vogue among those in search of a new sensation.
[Illustration: THE “ERMACK.”]
[Illustration: THE “EARL GREY.”]
The introduction of steam-propelled vessels was objected to by
sailing-yacht owners, but the advantages of auxiliary power in yachts
intended for cruising overcame all opposition, and in the course of a
few years the number of yachts of all rigs, even cutters, fitted with
auxiliary power, steadily increased. Machine-driven yachts are intended
as cruisers. A few steam-yachts had paddle-wheels, the latter being
specially favoured for all vessels intended for Government or for Royal
use, where sea-going qualities were required. One of the most notable
of this type was the _Victoria and Albert_, built to the order of her
Majesty the late Queen Victoria, which was, at the time of her launch,
one of the finest yachts afloat. Among the earliest of the Royal yachts
was the screw steamer _Fairy_, which was built for the late Queen in
1845 at the Thames Iron Works, Shipbuilding and Engineering Company’s
yard at Blackwall, then owned by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare. This was
the first iron vessel owned by the British Government. Her dimensions
were: length 144·8 feet, breadth 21 feet 1¹⁄₂ inches, draught 6 feet,
displacement 210 tons, horse-power 416, and speed 13·21 knots.
It is only fitting that the finest Royal yachts afloat intended purely
for pleasure purposes should be at the disposal of the monarch of the
leading maritime nation, and the latest Royal yachts built for the late
King Edward merit this description. They are the present _Victoria and
Albert_ and the _Alexandra_, the latter built in 1908. Other modern
Royal yachts of note are the German Emperor’s _Hohenzollern_, which is
heavily armed and can be utilised as a fast cruiser if necessary, and
the Russian _Pole Star_ and _Standart_.
Amongst the celebrated Royal yachts of the past belonging to foreign
rulers are the iron paddle-steamer _Faid Gihaad_, built in 1852
by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare for Said Pasha, the then Khedive of
Egypt. She was a flush-decked barquentine, 285 feet in length between
perpendiculars, 318 feet over all, with a breadth of beam of 40 feet
and a tonnage of 2200. Her engines were of 800 horse-power and were
built by Messrs. Maudslay and Field. She was equipped as a war vessel
and carried an armament of two 84-pounder pivot guns, twelve 32-pounder
broadside guns on the upper deck, and fourteen 32-pounders on the
main deck. Like everything else that the Pasha indulged in, the _Faid
Gihaad_ illustrated his taste for luxury. Externally the vessel was
painted white from the water-line, below which she was copper-coloured.
The stern was ornamented with a gold scroll, and each paddle-box had a
crescent and star in gold. Three years before the building of the _Faid
Gihaad_ there was constructed at Alexandria, by order of Said Pasha, a
steam-frigate called the _Sharkie_, which was sent to this country to
be fitted with steam-engines and a screw propeller. She was 220 feet in
length, was rigged as a second-class frigate, and had engines of 550
horse-power by Miller and Ravenhill. These were capable of driving her
nearly 11 knots an hour. Her armament consisted of 36 guns of heavy
calibre. The furniture and panelling of the cabins were richly inlaid
with ivory and mother-of-pearl, which may have admirably suited the
taste of Said Pasha in these matters, but can hardly have conduced to
the efficiency of the vessel as a fighting machine.
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE ROYAL YACHT “VICTORIA AND ALBERT.”]
[Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._
THE IMPERIAL YACHT “HOHENZOLLERN.”]
In the days when the Papal States were a power in the land and his
Holiness was not a voluntary prisoner in the Vatican, the then occupant
of St. Peter’s chair was the possessor of a very fine armed screw
steam-yacht, the _Immacolata Concezione_. She was built by the Thames
Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company, with engines by Messrs. J.
Seaward and Co. of Millwall. She carried eight brass 18-pounder guns,
and was a three-masted full-rigged ship of some 627 tons burden. The
engines were of 160 nominal horse-power and 300 indicated, and were
capable of giving her a speed of 13 knots an hour.
Among other famous iron vessels which were either specially built or
employed as Royal yachts in the middle of the last century may be
mentioned the _Jerome Napoleon_, constructed by M. A. Normand at Havre
for the late Prince Napoleon, afterwards Emperor of the French; the
_Peterhoff_, built by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare at Blackwall in 1850
for the late Emperor Nicholas of Russia, which was wrecked on her
outward voyage to the Baltic; the _Falken_, built at Deptford in 1858
by Messrs. C. Langley for the late King Frederick VII. of Denmark.
She was an iron schooner-rigged vessel 127 feet in length, and could
steam at 10 knots an hour. The _Miramar_ was a favourite yacht with
the late Empress of Austria. The Russian Imperial Yacht _Livadia_ was
circular and shallow, and is the only large turbot-shaped yacht afloat.
These yachts, however, have been gradually superseded by vessels of
a thoroughly modern type. As a case in point, the _Princess Alice_,
owned by H.S.H. the Prince of Monaco, and constructed by Messrs. R.
and H. Green at Blackwall in 1891, is built of steel frames with
teak planking, her bottom being covered with copper sheeting. Thus
in her general finish she is one of the finest specimens of marine
architecture on the composite principle which ever took the water.
Unlike most Royal yachts, she is used not merely for pleasure but also
for scientific research, for the Prince of Monaco is well known for his
contributions to the scientific knowledge of ocean depths and all that
pertains thereto. The expeditions which he has organised, and most of
which he has conducted in person, are invariably made on this yacht,
which is splendidly equipped for the purpose. In order that she may be
able to cover a large radius of action, she is fitted with an unusual
coal capacity and can store in her bunkers sufficient to carry her 3700
miles. Under steam alone she can make 9 knots an hour, and with steam
and sail combined she has been known to attain to nearly 12 knots an
hour.
The _Safa-el-bahr_, designed and constructed in 1894 by Messrs. A. and
J. Inglis of Glasgow for his Highness the Khedive of Egypt, is also a
steel-built two-decked yacht. She is schooner-rigged, and is fitted
with three-stage expansion engines with cylinders 18 inches, 29 inches,
and 48 inches in diameter, giving a piston stroke of 36 inches. These
are supplied with steam at a pressure of 160 lb. from two boilers
having a heating surface of 2300 square feet, and give an indicated
horse-power of 1200, with a speed of 14·1 knots per hour. Her tonnage
under yacht measurement is 677 tons. She has a length of 221 feet,
breadth 27·1 feet, depth 17·3, with a draught of 12 feet.
As private yacht-owning is a pastime in which only the wealthy can
indulge, and as almost all private yachts are built to suit the fancy
of their owner, a considerable individuality is displayed by them. They
range in size from vessels not bigger than a ship’s boat to ocean-going
liners. The _Winchester_, the latest boat of her class yet devised, is
a triple-screw turbine yacht, bearing a strong resemblance to a torpedo
boat. Her dimensions are: length 165 feet, breadth 15³⁄₄ feet, depth
9³⁄₄ feet, and displacement 180 tons. She was built in 1909 for Mr. W.
P. Rouss, a prominent member of the New York Yacht Club, by Messrs.
Yarrow and Co. of Scotstoun. The propelling machinery consists of three
Parsons marine steam turbines constructed by Messrs. Yarrow. She has
two Yarrow water-tube boilers, and her furnaces are fitted to burn oil
fuel. The hull is of steel. At her trials at Skelmorlie she easily
maintained a speed of 26³⁄₄ knots, which was ³⁄₄ of a knot in excess
of the speed stipulated in her building contract; and it was believed
that a much higher rate could have been achieved, as 250 lb., the full
working pressure of her boilers, was not reached, the high pressure of
her high-power turbine being only 160 lb.
The _Iolanda_, of about 2000 tons yacht measurement, was built for
an American owner in 1908, and was then stated to be the second
largest privately owned yacht in the world. She was both constructed
and engined by Messrs. Ramage and Ferguson, Ltd., Leith. Her length
over all is about 305 feet; beam 37 feet 6 inches; depth 23 feet. Her
twin-screw machinery is of the triple-expansion four-crank type of
3000 to 4000 indicated horse-power. Her boilers are partly cylindrical
marine return tubular and partly water-tube. This combination, the
first installed in any yacht, affords the advantage of being able to
raise steam and get under way at practically a moment’s notice, or
provides additional speed at short notice when required, while the
bunker capacity of some 550 tons gives the yacht a very extensive
ocean-steaming radius. She is provided with motor and steam launches,
quick-firing guns, electric-lighting apparatus, which is accredited
as being the largest ever installed in a private yacht, and includes
arrangements for manipulating the Marconi wireless telegraphy.
Among eccentricities of design in steamboats may be mentioned cigar
ships, vessels shaped like birds, early submarines, double-hulled
boats, and numerous other extravagances. One of the earliest submarines
was contrived by a Dutchman named Hollar, about 1653, but whether this
wonderful vessel ever got beyond the imaginative or paper stage is
unknown. There is a picture of it in the British Museum. This singular
craft was to be 72 feet in length, 12 feet high, and 8 feet beam, with
a wheel in the centre where it “hath its motion.” The description says
it was built at Rotterdam. The inventor undertook in one day to destroy
100 ships. “It can go from London to Rotterdam and back in one day, and
in six days can go to the East Indies, and can also run as fast as
bird can fly.” “No fire, no storm, no bullets can harm her unless it
please God.” There is no further trace of her.
The first submarine which achieved any measure of success was that of
David Bushnell, an American, who devised it in the hope of blowing
up a British warship and failed egregiously. Bushnell, who was born
at Saybrook, Conn., in 1742, devoted a large amount of attention to
submarine warfare. His idea was to fix a small powder magazine to the
bottom of a vessel and explode it by means of a clockwork apparatus. He
constructed a tortoise-shaped diving boat, made of iron, and containing
sufficient air to support a man for half an hour. This boat, called
the _American Turtle_, was propelled by a sort of screw or oar worked
from inside. It could be immersed by admitting water through a valve
in the bottom, and lightened by pumping the water out again. She was
tried, without success, against the British warship _Eagle_ in New
York harbour, and a later attack on the _Cerberus_ left that frigate
unharmed, but blew up an American schooner and some of her crew.
The _Gemini_ twin steamer, invented by Mr. Peter Borrie, was a
double-hulled boat, launched in the summer of 1850. The keels and stems
were not placed in the centre of the hulls but towards the inside of
them, thus making the water-lines very fine on the inside. This was
intended to diminish the tendency of the water to rise between the
hulls. The inner bilges were much fuller than the outer ones, the idea
being to afford a greater degree of buoyancy on the inside, in order
to support the weight of the deck. The steamer was 157¹⁄₂ feet long
over all, and 26¹⁄₂ feet broad on deck. Each hull was 8¹⁄₂ feet broad,
with a space 9¹⁄₂ feet between them. The frames were of angle iron,
and the keels were formed by carrying the plates downwards, so as to
form channels for the bilge-water inside the hulls. This arrangement
was intended for river craft of this type, but for sea-going vessels
drawing more water the inventor planned keels of iron bars, with the
garboard-strakes riveted upon them in the customary way. The plating
was not carried to the top of the frames on the inner side of the
hulls, except at the space in the middle for the paddle-wheel, but was
carried up to the deck, thus forming an arch between the two hulls,
which were bound together with stays. The hulls were divided into
water-tight compartments. The vessel was two-ended and could travel
in either direction without turning. There was a rudder at each end,
placed in the centre of the opening between the two hulls. It was
constructed somewhat in the manner of the balanced rudder of later
years, as it was affixed, to a vertical shaft in such a way that it was
divided into two unequal parts, and when left free would accommodate
itself to the vessel’s motion. The steamer was estimated to carry from
800 to 1000 passengers.
Whether in the sailing days or since, the crossing of the Channel
between Dover and Calais has been attended with an amount of misery
altogether disproportionate to the shortness of the voyage. It is
therefore not surprising that inventors have at one time and another
attempted to design vessels which should give the maximum of speed and
comfort and the minimum of sea-sickness. The English Channel Steamship
Company, Limited, was formed in 1872 to adopt the plan of a steam-ship
designed by Captain Dicey, and construct the steam-ship _Castalia_.
His idea was that two large hulls should be used, and placed at such a
distance apart that each should act as an outrigger to the other, and
the whole structure should remain comparatively steady. The _Castalia_
was built by the Thames Iron Works Company. She was 400 feet long, and
each hull had a beam of 20 feet, with a depth of hold of 20 feet. The
distance between the two hulls was 35 feet, and they were united by
strong girders. The hulls were very sharp at the ends, and flat in
the floors, and the draught of water was only 6 feet. The inner sides
of the hulls had a freeboard of 14 feet, and the uniting girders were
slightly arched, but a difference in the methods of fixing them to the
hull was made, compared with previous experience with double-hulled
vessels. In former attempts to solve the problem of the navigation of
twin steamers, the connecting beams had usually been placed in such
a way that their ends extended under the decks of the hulls. This in
the case of wood was manifestly a plan which did not permit of a very
large vessel or of a certain limit of strength being exceeded. Captain
Dicey’s scheme in adopting the arched form of girder was to utilise to
the utmost the strength of the iron, and bind with the utmost rigidity
the whole structure together. Where the girders entered the hulls the
upper part was just under the deck; the girders were carried right
across to the outer sides of each hull, additional strength being
provided by bolting every girder to a bulkhead. The space between the
hulls was decked over, and allowed ample accommodation for passengers.
Each hull carried a powerful engine for driving a large paddle-wheel,
the wheels being placed with a space between them amidships between the
two vessels. The vessel could be steered at either end, thus obviating
the necessity of turning, and a navigating bridge extended across the
tops of the two paddle-boxes. It was even claimed that the ship would
be large enough to carry railway trains across the Channel, but this
does not seem to have been tried. As she drew only a trifle over 6 feet
of water she could enter the harbours on either side of the Channel at
any state of the tide, and though she was steady enough as a sea boat
she was too slow, and was withdrawn from service.
A double-hulled boat of a somewhat different type, and from which great
things were expected, was the _Calais-Douvres_. Her principal features
were to be an increase in speed and stability, and by means of the
steadiness of her double hull, the abolition of sea-sickness. She was
an enlarged _Castalia_. The expectation of her owners on these points
was not realised and after a few trips she was withdrawn from service
and replaced by another and more efficient vessel of the ordinary type.
To the category of magnificent failures there should be added the
steam-ship _Bessemer_, launched at Hull in 1874 and designed by and
named after Mr. (afterwards Sir) Henry Bessemer. The object her
designer had in view was to mitigate the horrors of the cross-Channel
passage, and to accomplish this he fitted his boat with a spacious
saloon which, by means of a series of pivots and a gyroscope, would
remain in a level position without oscillation, no matter how much the
vessel might roll or how rough the weather might be. These arrangements
worked perfectly in theory, but immediately the _Bessemer_ went to sea
for her trials and the test became a practical one, it was discovered
that she must be relegated to a conspicuous place among the successes
that might have been. Everything about her was on a lavish scale.
A peculiarity was that she had four paddle-wheels, two a side, an
experiment that has never been successful. Her form also was against
her, and in dirty weather she would have been a wet ship, difficult to
steer, and almost helpless.
On her private trial trip the _Bessemer_ attained a speed of eleven
knots in crossing from Dover to Calais, but was thirty-five minutes in
getting alongside the French pier.
One of the most extraordinary vessels ever designed was that known as
the _Connector_. She was not rigid, but was built of sections which
could be joined together, so that she would bend in accord with the
motion of the waves. The joints were constructed by giving to the
after end of all sections (but the last) a concave form so that it
would overlap the convex bow of the adjoining section. These were
joined and hinged by massive iron bolts resting in stout wrought-iron
sponsons built into the ship’s sides and framework. If necessary one
of the sections could be disconnected and the other three joined up.
As each section was fitted with a fore and aft rig, like a cutter,
it could make its way under sail alone if necessary. The engine was
contained in the hindmost section, which really pushed the other three
along. She was intended to be used as an iron screw collier in the
London and North-East coast coal trade. Each section was to act as a
lighter, and could be left where desired, while the others were sent
to their respective destinations, to be picked up again in turn when
it was desired to reunite the vessel, and send her for another cargo.
The advantage claimed for this peculiar system was that vessels of very
light draught, and of length far greater than hitherto and carrying the
largest cargoes, might be used without the danger of breaking their
backs, or even straining, the yielding of the joints neutralising that
liability; also that their great length, light draught, and narrow
midship section, permitted unprecedented speed, while the facility
for detaching part of the vessel in case of collision, fire, sudden
leakage, or grounding with a falling tide, would afford a means of
saving life and a portion of hull and cargo, when otherwise all would
be lost. A company called the Jointed Ship Company was formed to
exploit this novelty in ship construction. Like other experimental
schemes it was not a success, the theory of the designers and the
practice of Father Neptune not being in accord.
The _Winans_ cigar ship, as her name indicates, was shaped like a huge
cigar. Messrs. Winans began experimenting in the ’fifties at Baltimore
with a view to ascertaining the amount of water-friction sustained
by surfaces of differing smoothness at various speeds, the relative
resistance of proportions and speeds, and whether any advantages were
to be gained from spindle-shaped vessels as compared with ordinary
vessels. These experiments resulted in the launching in October 1858
at Ferry Bay, Baltimore, of a spindle- or cigar-shaped vessel having
about its middle a ring bearing flanges set at an angle calculated to
strike the water and propel the vessel. She had four powerful engines
placed amidships, and rudders at both ends measuring 4 feet by 3 feet.
She was 16 feet in diameter at the widest part and 180 feet long, and
it was expected she would cross the Atlantic in four days; she belied
those expectations. The owners stated that she was designed “to obtain
greater safety, despatch, uniformity, certainty of action, as well
as economy of exportation by sea.” They believed that “by discarding
sails entirely, and all the necessary appendages, and building the
vessel of iron, having reference to the use of steam alone, these most
desirable ends may be even still more fully attained than by vessels
using both sails and steam.” They continue: “The vessel we are now
constructing has no keel, no cutwater, no blunt bow standing up above
the water-line to receive blows from the heaving sea, no flat deck
to hold or bulwark to retain the water; neither masts, spars, nor
rigging.” The plan and position of the propelling wheel were supposed
to be such that its minimum hold of the water would be much greater in
proportion to tonnage than the maximum hold of the propelling wheel
or wheels in ordinary steamers. The engines were high pressure with a
cut-off variable from one-sixth to full stroke; combined, they were to
exert threefold more power in proportion to displacement of water than
those of the most powerful steam-packets then built. Her boilers were
of the locomotive type, consuming 30 tons of coal in twenty-four hours,
the smoke, &c., being carried away by two funnels. She was divided
into several water-tight compartments. With 200 tons of coal on board
she was to displace about 350 tons of water, and accommodate about
twenty first-class passengers and the United States mail, with room to
spare for small valuable packages, specie, &c. The same principles and
properties which were to adapt the vessel to high average speed were
claimed to be also adapted to the cheap, safe and sure transportation
of freight as compared with vessels using sails only or sails and steam
combined. There was a railed-in space on her upper surface for the deck.
Messrs. Winans’ first cigar ship, though not fulfilling all the hopes
formed of her, was, on the whole, sufficiently successful to encourage
the continuance of the experiments, for in the two following years
she was severely tested both for speed and seaworthiness in all sorts
of weather. Another vessel was built at St. Petersburg in 1861 with
a submerged screw propeller at the stern, which gave so much more
satisfactory results than the revolving belt apparatus that Messrs.
Winans were encouraged to order a third spindle ship. This was built
by Mr. John Hepworth of the Isle of Dogs, and was named after her
inventor, Mr. Ross Winans. This boat was 256 feet in length with a
diameter and depth of 16 feet, and was circular in form throughout.
The top of the vessel was strengthened for 130 feet amidships by four
longitudinal ribs of steel which supported the deck, and also rendered
the top as strong to resist tension and other strains as the bottom.
Internally there were iron ribs running round the vessel 4 inches deep
and 3 feet apart in the engine and boiler room, and 7 inches deep and
spaced 6 feet elsewhere. The bottom and side plates were of iron,
were thicker amidships than at the end, while the bottom was further
strengthened and protected outside the skin plates by a plate of iron
1 inch thick and 33 inches across at its widest and diminishing to a
point at the ends. The skin plates of the top were of toughened steel
³⁄₈ inch thick amidships. The two screw propellers, one at either
end, were 22 feet in diameter and were only half immersed in the
water, though it is difficult to imagine what advantages were supposed
to be gained by incomplete immersion, seeing that the exposed part
represented so much dead weight to be carried, to say nothing of the
other drawbacks. A space 48 feet 6 inches long amidships was devoted
to the engines and boilers. Each of the four boilers had a fire-box,
and was surmounted by two vertical cylinders containing vertical
tubes; while the centre portions of the boilers were tubeless to allow
of more ready cleaning and a better circulation. A fan increased
the draught and also the ventilation of the ship. The engines were
surface-condensing. The problem of allowing the longest possible
stroke was ingeniously solved. Above each of the three jacketed steam
cylinders was a shaft, carrying two cranks and working by the sides of
the cylinder, the piston-rods passing the shaft and connecting with a
cross-head above, which was connected with the cranks by two rods. The
three engines were joined by a system of return cranks and a peculiar
coupling, which prevented cross-strains from the transmission of power
from engine to engine, and from the shafts of the different engines
getting out of line. The ship could carry coal for twelve days at
normal consumption. On deck it carried two masts and two funnels, all
having a considerable rake aft.
In 1860, Captain George Peacock, F.R.G.S., formerly a London merchant,
and then residing near Exeter, invented a yacht in the shape of a
swan. Her title, the _Swan of the Exe_, was displayed on a banneret,
the brass rod of which was held in the swan’s beak. This mechanical
bird was 17 feet 6 inches in length, with a maximum beam of 7 feet 6
inches, and its height from the keel to the top of the back was 7 feet
3 inches. Its neck and head, which were gracefully curved, rose 16 feet
above the water. Its long neck had to do duty as a mast for supporting
by means of halliards the two wings, each of which consisted of a
double lateen sail. The halliards passed through gilt pendant blocks,
attached to a ring, fastened round the neck just below the head. The
vessel itself consisted of twin boats beneath the water-line, there
being an oblong compartment in the centre, though viewed from the
front or side it appeared to consist of one hull only. She had two
powerful webbed and feathering feet, constructed of steel, to propel
her. These were placed between the keels or hulls, and worked by a
lever attached to a contrivance such as is seen on old-fashioned
hand fire-engines, operated by two or four persons as required. With
two oars which she could also carry, her fishtail-shaped rudder, her
feet, and her wings, she could get up a speed before the wind of five
miles an hour. She was only intended for ornamental waters or inland
lakes. Her interior fittings suggested those of a first-class railway
carriage, with plate-glass windows at the sides, &c. Her centre table
was big enough for ten persons to dine comfortably at, and at night
it could accommodate a mattress upon which to sleep. A description of
her at the time adds: “In the table are small apertures which open
to the water underneath, and thus afford the opportunity of fishing
while sitting at table. Any aquatic prey thus obtained may be dressed
in a multum-in-parvo cooking apparatus on board, the smoke from which
is conveyed through the bird’s neck, and out at its nostrils. In the
breast of the bird is a ladies’ cabin fitted up as a boudoir.” The
_Swan_ was of about 5 tons register, and when fully stored and carrying
15 persons, only drew 17 inches of water. About the only thing of which
the inventor had not thought was to make one eye green and the other
red, to represent ship’s lights.
The only ship of her kind ever built with a hot-air engine was
the _Ericsson_, named after her inventor and generally called the
_Caloric_, because of her peculiar engines. These had four immense
cylinders which drove paddle-wheels 32 feet in diameter, the energy
being transmitted by a contrivance Ericsson invented and termed the
“regenerator.” The shape of the furnaces and the small amount of fuel
they required, together with the absence of boilers, enabled a greater
amount of space to be devoted to the accommodation of merchandise and
passengers. The vessel was 250 feet long, 40 feet broad, 31 feet deep,
and had a gross tonnage of 1920. She was built in 1852, of wood, and
was asserted to have made a speed of 12 knots an hour on her trial
trip, but she never came anywhere near this subsequently.
The absence of funnels and the presence of two large paddle-boxes made
her one of the most extraordinary vessels ever seen. She made one slow
journey across the Atlantic to Liverpool and back to America, and after
another set of caloric engines had been tried in her with about as much
success, in regard to her speed, as the first, she was fitted with
engines of the ordinary type.
Three other inventions which have not yet passed the experimental stage
are the Hydrocurve, the Hydroplan, and the Hydroplane.
The hydroplan is a motor-boat carrying two enormous propellers, one
above the stem and the other above the stern, which revolve in the air
and not in the water. The vessel is said to have been invented by a
gentleman named Fortanini, and with a 70-horse-power motor is claimed
to have attained, on Lake Maggiore, two or three years ago, a speed
of 40 miles an hour. For all practical purposes the hydroplan may be
described as a “skimming dish” hull gliding on the surface of the
water, its draught being a few inches only.
For some time past some attention has been directed to the trials,
on the Illinois River, of a curious type of aquatic motor, named the
hydrocurve. Instead of ploughing through the water, the hull of the
hydrocurve displaces the water, not sideways as with an ordinary type
of vessel, but downwards from the surface, each particle of water
being moved in one direction only. According to a report published in
the _Popular Mechanic_ of Chicago, this curious vessel on her first
trial made a speed of 35 miles an hour. In a further test she achieved
1¹⁄₈ mile in 1 minute 30 seconds, or, roughly speaking, 45 miles an
hour. She is 40 feet in length and carries an 80-horse-power motor. The
bottom of the boat is concave, lengthways and across.
The theory that with an increase in speed the tendency of a ship is to
rise, so that when travelling at a fast rate she will draw less water
than when going slowly, and consequently will have less resistance and
less skin friction, has attracted the attention of naval architects
for many years. So far as theory is concerned, there is nothing to
prevent a vessel being built on this principle, but when it comes to
considering stability, it is another question altogether. The principle
is based upon the well-known theory that if the hull of a vessel be
made flat in the bottom and inclined slightly, so that it forms an
inclined plane, the vessel will rise to an extent governed by the
speed at which it travels. The Rev. C. M. Ramus, of Rye, Sussex, in
1872 improved on this theory by making a flat bottom in two inclined
planes, one behind the other, so that each should have an equal lifting
power. The Admiralty tested several models made by him, but without
satisfactory results, probably due to the comparative inefficiency of
the screw-propelling machinery of the period. An American engineer,
named Fauber, taking advantage of improved propelling machinery,
designed a vessel on these lines with hydroplanes attached directly to
the bottom, and a year or two ago it carried six persons at a speed
of 35 miles per hour. If a vessel of this size can be constructed and
retain its stability, there is no reason why one of much greater size
should not be built. The development of the principle is that the
planes should be placed at some distance below the bottom of the hull,
so that when the vessel travels at a considerable speed, it shall
rise out of the water and be supported by the planes, which shall skim
along the surface. This, however, can only be achieved at present by
sacrificing stability to speed. An improvement in construction is to
shape the bottom of the hull like a very wide letter =[V]=, with a
series of planes underneath. It is claimed that an ocean liner can be
built on this system, carrying six propellers arranged in three pairs,
and that the necessary air would be pumped under the vessel by the
action of the propellers as she travelled along.
A steamer on wheels, but intended to travel on the water, was invented
a few years since by a Frenchman named Bazin. He constructed a model,
which worked well and was on the scale of one-twenty-fifth of the liner
he hoped to see built some day. The model consisted of four pairs of
hollow wheels or discs, each wheel being in appearance like two immense
soup-plates set face to face and set on edge. These wheels were caused
to revolve, thereby reducing the friction of the water to a minimum,
and the vessel was propelled by a screw. The decks, being built on a
framework over the axles, had space for ample accommodation, and in
order that the speed of the ship should not suffer it was intended to
carry no cargo. A vessel on this plan was constructed and launched
on the Seine. The platform was 126 feet long by about 40 feet wide,
and each wheel was about 32 feet in diameter and about 10 feet at its
greatest width. The total weight of the boat was about 280 tons. The
boat proved her utility when tried. The inventor estimated that an
ocean-going liner constructed on this system would easily cross the
Atlantic at a rate of thirty knots an hour.
It is impossible to say what the development of the steam-ship will
be in the future. The piston engine has probably reached its utmost
development, or very nearly so, and much more in that direction is not
to be expected. Naval architects are already considering whether the
existing lines of the steam-ship are the best for speed, and a design
has been brought out for a steamer constructed on what are known as
tetrahedral lines. There has recently been described in the _Scientific
American_ a vessel, a model of which has been constructed, designed
upon this tetrahedral principle. It is contended that this form for
ships offers less resistance than any, and that by it alone can the
greatest attainable speed at sea be reached. Yarrow boilers with
Schultz turbines are recommended for vessels of this type.
A proposal for fast Atlantic travelling, which has not gone beyond the
paper stage, is that three long narrow hulls should be built parallel
to each other and supporting the main body of the hull. The inventor
claims that the method would enable a greater speed to be attained
than by any existing liner, and at a less cost; but readers who have
followed the development of the steam-ship will recollect that this
suggestion provides a curious parallel to the experiments of Patrick
Miller with his triple-hulled boats in the eighteenth century.
Few, however, will doubt that, great as have been the changes in
shipbuilding and steam-propulsion during the last hundred years, there
will be changes as great in the present century.
[Illustration:
C. WATSON’S DOCK AT ROTHERHITHE, LIFTING H.M. BRIG “MERCURY.”
_From Watson’s Specification.--A.D. 1785._
THE BERMUDA FLOATING DOCK, LIFTING A 15,000-TON IRONCLAD OF THE
“MAJESTIC” CLASS.
_From the Contract Drawings.--A.D. 1900._
THE VULCAN CO.’S FLOATING DOCK FOR HAMBURG, LIFTING A 36,000-TON SHIP
OF THE “MAURETANIA” CLASS.
_From the Contract Drawings._
THE EVOLUTION OF FLOATING DOCKS, 1800-1910.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAMSON, A. Sea-borne Traffic. (Paper read before the Institute of
Marine Engineers.)
AISBITT, M. W. Shipbuilding Ancient and Modern.
AMERICAN “Fall River” and “Hudson River Day” Lines, publications of.
AMERICAN “Merchants’ Magazine.”
AMERICAN Report of the Merchant Marine Commission.
APPLETON’S Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1887-9.
BATES, CAPTAIN W. The American Marine.
BOURNE, JOHN, C.E. Treatise on the Screw Propeller, Screw Vessels,
and Screw Engines.
BRASSEY’S Naval Annual.
BUCKWELL, G. W. The History of the Newhaven and Dieppe Service.
(Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers, 1891.)
“CASSIER’S MAGAZINE.”
“CENTURY MAGAZINE.”
CHANNING, E., and LANSING, M. F. The Story of the Great Lakes.
“CHAMBER’S JOURNAL.”
CLARK, LYONEL E., M.I.N.A. Floating Docks.
COLDEN, CADWALLADER C. Life of Fulton.
CUNARD LINE, HISTORY OF. 1886.
“DAILY NEWS.”
DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY.
DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL.
DREWRY, T. Propellers.
ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA.
“ENGINEERING.”
“ENGINEER,” THE.
FURMAN, FRANKLIN DE R., M.E., and HUMPHREYS, A. C., M.E., Sc.D.,
LL.D. A History of the Stevens Institute of Technology. 1905.
GOODEVE, T. M., M.A. The Elements of Mechanism.
---- Text-book on the Steam-engine.
HALDANE, J. W. C. Atlantic Liners and their Engines.
---- Steam-ships and their Machinery. 1893.
HALL, HENRY. American Navigation.
---- Shipbuilding Industry of the United States.
HOLMES, SIR GEORGE, C.V., K.C.V.O., C.B. Ancient and Modern Ships.
1906.
HULLS, J. H. Lecture on the Introduction of Steam Navigation.
(Delivered before the Institute of Marine Engineers, February 6,
1906.)
“ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS.”
“ILLUSTRATED TIMES.”
INMAN LINE OFFICIAL GUIDE.
“INTERNATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERING.”
JOHNSON, R. W. The Making of the River Tyne.
JOURNAL of the American Society of Naval Engineers.
KENNEDY, JOHN. History of Steam Navigation. 1903.
KNIGHT’S Encyclopædia.
LATROBE, J. B. A Lost Chapter in the History of the Steamboat.
LINDSAY, W. S. A History of Merchant Shipping.
---- Our Merchant Shipping.
LINK OF EMPIRE, A: or Seventy Years of British Shipping. (Souvenir of
the Seventieth Year of Incorporation of the Royal Mail Steam Packet
Company.) 1909.
“LIVERPOOL JOURNAL OF COMMERCE.”
“LIVERPOOL COURIER.”
MACFARLANE. History of Propellers.
MAGINNIS, A.J., M.Inst.C.E. The Atlantic Ferry: Its Ships, Men, and
Working. 1900.
MARVIN, W. L. The American Merchant Marine.
“MASTER, MATE, AND PILOT.” (New York.)
MECHANIC’S REGISTER.
MORRISON. American Steam Navigation.
MORSE, J. T., jun. Benjamin Franklin.
MURRAY, ROBERT, C.E. Rudimentary Treatise on Marine Engines and Steam
Vessels; together with Practical Remarks on the Screw and Propelling
Power as used in the Royal and Merchant Navy. 1852.
“NAUTICAL GAZETTE.”
“NAUTICAL MAGAZINE.”
NIMMO, J., jun. American Treasury Department’s Report, 1870.
ORIENT LINE GUIDE.
PALMER’S Shipbuilding and Iron Company. Some Account of the Works of.
4th edition, 1909.
PARSONS, HON. C. A. The Development of the Marine Steam Turbine.
(Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers. Sept. 29, 1906.)
P. & O. COMPANY’S HANDBOOK.
“PENNY MAGAZINE.”
PHILLIPS, SIR R. A Million of Facts.
RENWICK, JAMES. Robert Fulton. 1845.
SEATON, A. E. A Manual of Marine Engineering. 1890.
“SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.”
SEMMES, CAPTAIN RAPHAEL. Voyages of the _Sumter_ and _Alabama_.
SENNET, R., and ORAM, H. J. The Marine Steam-engine. 1898.
SHAW, SAVILL AND ALBION CO.’S GUIDE.
“SHIPBUILDER,” THE.
“SHIPPING.”
“SHIPPING ILLUSTRATED.”
“SHIPPING WORLD,” THE.
SINCLAIR, A. Two Years on the _Alabama_.
SMITH, J. RUSSELL. The Ocean Carrier.
SPARKS’ Library of American Biography.
“STANDARD,” THE.
“STEAM-SHIP,” THE.
STEVENS, FRANCIS B. The First Steam Screw Propeller Boats to navigate
the Waters of any Country. (Reprint from the Stevens Indicator, Vol.
X., April 1893.)
STRETTON, CLEMENT E., C.E. The History of the Holyhead Railway Boat
Service. (A Paper read on the occasion of the Jubilee of the Railway
Companies’ Working, August 1, 1898.) 2nd edition (enlarged), 1901.
“TIMES,” THE.
TRANSACTIONS of the Institute of Marine Engineers.
WALLIKER, J. F. Twenty Years of Progress in Cargo-boat Machinery.
(Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers, Feb. 12, 1900.)
WATSON, COLIN. Doubly in Crown Service.
WELLS, D. A. Our Merchant Marine.
WILLIAMS, HARRY, R.N. The Steam Navy of England, 1893.
WILLIAMSON, CAPTAIN JAMES. The Clyde Passenger Steamer: Its Rise and
Progress during the Nineteenth Century. 1904.
INDEX
(N.B.--All vessels are indexed under Ships named.)
Aberdeen Line, Rennie’s, 183; Thompson’s, 296
Aberdeen schooners, 85
Accidents, steam-ship, inquiry into, 77
Adelaide Steamship Co., 347
Admiralty, the, steam packet, 102; vessels, 176; and floating docks,
356, 362; and private shipbuilding yards, 319; and twin screws, 325;
and wooden three-deckers, 316
Æolipile of Hero of Alexandria, 9
Africa, West, mail service, 261
African Steamship Co., 261, 299
Ailsa Shipbuilding Co., 99
_Alabama_ claims, the, 176
Albany Line, 48
Albion Co., 298
Alexandria-England, carriage of mails, 178
Alexandria-Suez, travel between, 167
Algiers, U.S.A., floating dock, 358
Allaire Works, 173
Allan Line, 254-255, 281
Allen, Dr. John, and jet-propeller, 12
Allison, Messrs. M. A., New Jersey, 50
Altona floating dock, 355
Alvarez, Don José, Chilian Agent, 128
America, steam vessels in, in 1817, 45
America, South, West Coast of, 263
American Civil War, vessels in the, 90, 98, 175, 329;
blockade-runners, 327
American ice-breaking steamers, 369-371
American Line, 256, 291
American mail service, 150, 188
American Navy, the, 329, 339
American pioneers in steam navigation, 19
American river steamers, design of, 46
American Shipbuilding Co., 54
American steam-ships and foreign trade, beginnings of, 153
American subsidy to steam-ship service, 155
American train ferry-boats, 363
Amherst, Lord, 164
Anderson, Anderson & Co., 294
Anglo-French Co.’s fleet, 118
Animal-driven paddles, 2
Apcar, Messrs., Calcutta, 264
Appleton’s “Cyclopædia of American Biography,” 19, 23
Armour plates, 331 _et seq._
Armstrong, Mitchell & Co., 212, 364
Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., 336, 367, 369
Armstrong, Sir William, and cupola vessels, 330
Aspinwall, C. H., 188
Atlantic cable-laying by _Great Eastern_, 277
“Atlantic Greyhound” title won by _Alaska_, 250
Atlantic Liners. _See_ Allan, American, Beaver, Collins, Compagnie
Générale Transatlantique, Cunard, Dominion, Donaldson, Galway, Guion,
Hamburg-Amerika, Inman, National, Norddeutscher Lloyd, Red Star,
State, and White Star Lines
Atlantic records, 241, 250, 282, 288
Atlantic routes adopted, 241
Atlantic service. _See_ Transatlantic
Australia, Cape route to, 291; discovery of gold, 232; first steam
voyage to, 94; prize for fastest voyage to, 263
Australian mail service, 185, 295
Australian Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co., 263
Australian service of P. & O. Co., 180
Australian steamers, the coaling of, 256
Australian trade cargo carriers, 294, 297
Austria, Empress of, yacht of, 373
Austrian-Lloyd Steam Navigation Co., 267
Babcock and Wilcox boilers, 359
Baikal, Lake, ferry, 365
Baltic, Swedish railway ferry, 365
Banana trade, West Indies, 299
Barclay, Curle & Co., Ltd., 206, 294
Barnes, Joseph, 20
Barrow-Belfast service, 121
Barrow-Isle of Man service, 96, 121
Barrow Steam Navigation Co., 121
Batteries, floating, 312, 320
Bazin, M., invents steamer on wheels, 387
Beard, Mr., Scotch ironmaster, 115
Beaver Line, 253, 299
Bell, Henry, of Helensburgh, 61; relations with Fulton, 61; designs a
steamboat, 62
Bell indicator for steward, 143
Belt conveyors, 349
Berlin, service to, 117
Bermuda floating dock, 355-357
Bernoulli, Daniel, 207
Bessemer, Sir Henry, and gyroscope boat, 379
Bilge keel, 281
Binney, Capt, L. & N.W.R. Marine Superintendent, 120
Bird-foot propellers, 7, 27, 207
Birmingham, Eagle Foundry, 4
Bishop’s disc engine, 313
Black and Saxton Campbell, Quebec, 134
Blackett, Capt., R.N., 214
Blockade-runners, 90, 98, 174, 175, 327
Blohm and Voss floating dock, 362
Blue Anchor Line, 297
Boats driven by animals, 2
Boats for safety, 78
Boilers, 229-230, 306; without water, 39; pressure, 210; tubular,
209; in warships, 337
Bombay floating dock, 363
Bombay, steamer launched at, 202
Borrie, Peter, 376
Boston-Liverpool trade, 288
Boulton and Watt engines, 30, 66, 81, 134, 311
Bourne, Messrs., 176
Bourne, William, proposition (1578), 6
Bows of steamers, shape of, 71
Branca, Giovanni, and steam (1629), 9
Brazil trade, 183
Bremen-New York service, 305
Bremen floating docks, 362
Brent, Mr., Deptford, 131
Bridgewater, Duke of, 61
Brighton, 106
Bristol-Waterford trade, 75
British and African Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 299
British and American Steam Navigation Co., 138, 148
British and Foreign Steam Navigation Co., 110, 111, 177
British and Irish Steam Packet Co., 97
British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. _See_ Cunard
Line
British India Steam Navigation Co., 181, 185
British Queen Steam Navigation Co., 138
British steam-ships, beginnings of, 56
Brown, John, & Co., Clydebank, 337
Brown-Curtis turbine, 337
Brown, Mr. W. H., New York, 158
Brownne, Charles, builder of the _Clermont_, 36
Brunel, Isambard K., 78, 208, 236, 263; designs the _Great Britain_,
221; and the _Great Eastern_, 269-278
Brunel, Sir Mark, 224
“Bulk freighter,” 82
Bulkheads, 230, 235
Bunker, Captain Elihu S., rivals Fulton, 36, 39
Burmese War, 165
Burns, Mr. John, and Mr. S. Cunard, 150
Bury, Curtice, and Kennedy, Liverpool, 231
Bushnell, David, designs submarines, 206, 276; and applies screw
propeller, 206
Caird, Messrs., of Greenock, 119, 241, 293, 294, 305
Calcutta and Burmah Steam Navigation Co., 181
Calcutta, steamers to, via the Cape, 184; and Suez service, 178; to
Spithead, length of passage in 1840, 167
Calcutta Steam Committee, 166
California gold rush, 188
Californian trade, 188
Callao floating dock, 360
Calliope, the, musical instrument, 50
Caloric engines, 384
Cameron, T., & Co., Messrs., 100
Cammell, Laird & Co., 338
Campbell, Johnston & Co., floating dock at Bermuda, 356
Canada, mail steam-ship line to, 254; lines to, 255
Canadian-built lake steamers, 55
Canadian claims for first steam crossing of Atlantic, 135
Canadian ice-breaking steamers, 369-371
Canadian Pacific Railway, 299
Canadian trade, 289
Canso, Straits of, railway ferry, 369
Cantilever-framed steamers, 346
Cape route to India, 167
Cape to Spithead, length of passage (1840), 169
Cape of Good Hope mail subsidy, 183
Cape Town-Durban mails, 183
Cargo-boats, 342-352
Carron Shipping Co., the, 85-87
Carron Works, 56
Cartagena floating dock, 363
Cattle steamers, 345
Caus, Salomon de, 10
Ceylon-Hong-Kong mails, 179
“Chambers’ Journal,” account of the _Great Eastern_, 271-275
Channel Islands service, 109-112
Chester and Holyhead Railway Co., 103; absorbed by L. & N.W.R., 119
Chili, 189
Chili coal mines, 187
Chilian Revolution, The _Rising Star_ and the, 126
China, P. & O. Co. service to, 180; ships for, 206
China trade, 173; ships in, 265
Chinese paddle-wheels, ancient, 4
Cigar (shaped) ships, 375, 380
City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. _See_ Dublin
Clark, Edwin, and floating docks, 363
Clark and Standfield and floating docks, 355, 361
Cleopatra’s Needle, 341
Clippers, Yankee wooden, 194
Clyde, Bell’s steamboat on the, 62; first Cunarders built on the,
151; first steamer on the, 28; steamers on the, in 1818, 76. _See
also_ Glasgow
Clyde ferries, 366
Clyde to Liverpool, first passenger-steamer, 95
Coach fare, Scotland to London, 85
Coal at Suez, 166
Coal consumption, 229; of turbines, 309; in early voyages across
Atlantic, 142
Coal, difficulty of carrying, for long voyages, 169
Coalfields, Midland, 213
Coaling for steamers, 256
Coastal steam-ship service, development of, 80; British, 71
Coasting trade of the United Kingdom in 1822-39, 76, 77
Cochrane, Hon. William E., 127, 129
Cockerill (Belgian firm), 321
“Coffin brigs,” 149
Colden, Cadwallader D., on Robert Fulton, 26
Coles, Capt., and cupola vessels, 330; tripod masts, 332; drowned, 334
Collier belt conveyors, 349
Colliers, screw, 214
Collier, steam, with a screw, first, 213
Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., Ontario, 55
Collins, Mrs., and children drowned, 160
Collins, Mr. K. Edward, New York, 155
Collins Line, 153, 155 _et seq._; construction of ships, 158; secures
premier position, 159; extravagances and losses, 159; subsidy reduced
and line ceased, 161; service, 240
Collisions, intentional, 53
Colon, service to, 191
Commercial Steam Packet Co., 111
Compagnie Belge Maritime du Congo, 299
Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 267
Compañia de Vapores Correos Interinsulares Canarios, 299
Confederate States of America, steamers, 90, 98, 174; commissioners,
262
Connecticut River, Morey’s steamboat on, 24
Continental passenger traffic, 105
Cootes, Mr., Walker-on-Tyne, 211, 213
Cork Steamship Co., 97, 139
Corrugated steam-ship, 349
Craggs, R., & Sons, Ltd., 348, 349
Cramp, Messrs., Philadelphia, 256, 291, 340
Crimean War, 98; iron vessel in the, 316; and shipbuilding yards,
319; floating batteries, 312, 320; P. & O. steamers employed, 180;
steam-ships in the, 312; transports, 183, 239, 262
Cruisers, armed mercantile, 287, 291
Cunard Line, 281-287; first Cunarder based on Manx steamer, 87;
beginnings, 150; sizes, &c. of first steamers, 151; increase of
business, 152; builds iron ships, 153; rivalry with Inman Line,
240; first iron steamer, 243; last paddle-steamer, 246; adopt
screw-steamers, 246
Cunard, Mr. Samuel, 134, 149
Curling, Young & Co., Messrs., 138, 146, 187
Curtis turbines, 338
Cutters in Channel Islands service, 109
Cutwaters, straight, 158
Dalswinton, 58
Davey, Mr. W. J., 299
Dawson’s steamer, London-Gravesend, 70
Day Line, 49, 51
Day, Summers & Co., 114
Decks for passengers, 42
Delaware River, early steamboats on the, 25, 29
Dempster, John, 299
Denny Bros., Dumbarton, ships by, 96, 105, 281, 310
Dent & Co., 203
Destroyers, 336
Dewey floating dock, 362
Dicey, Capt., 377
Dickenson, Robert, and iron ships, 195
Dieppe-Honfleur route, 108
Displacement, theory of, 30, 193
Ditchburn and Mare, Blackwall, ships by, 233, 234, 260, 313, 371, 372
Dixon, Sir Raylton, & Co., Ltd., 346
Docks, dry, difficulties of, 353; floating, 352-363
Dod, Daniel, 123
Dodd, Capt., of the _Thames_, 67
Dominion Line, 243, 288
Donaldson Line, 255
Dover-Calais service, 72, 105; designs to prevent sea-sickness,
377-379; race, paddle _v._ screw, 259; proposed railway ferry, 366
Doxford, Messrs., and the rolling of ships’ plates, 345; and shifting
cargo in bulk, 346, 351
Dramatic Line, 155
Dublin and Liverpool Steam Navigation Co., 73, 74
Dublin and London Steam Packet Co., 176
Dublin, City of, Steam Packet Co., 72, 74, 89; service to London, 97;
Irish mail service, 102-104; and transatlantic service, 144
Dublin-London service, 97
Dublin-Wexford service, 98
Duck-foot paddles, 7, 27, 207
Dudgeon, Messrs. J. & W., ships and engines by, 108, 184, 186, 234,
264, 265, 322; expansion engines and screw propellers, 256; first
apply twin-screws, 325
Duncan, R. (shipbuilder), 151
Dundas, Lord, 28, 57, 59
Dundee, Perth, and London Shipping Co., 87
Dundonald, Lord, 127, 129
Dundrum Bay, _Great Britain_ ashore, 225
Dupuy de Lome, M., 320
Durham, Capt., 264
Dutch steamers, 76
Dynamite gun, 339
East, communication between England and the, 164
East India Co. and steamers to India, 166; inefficiency of service,
176; services, 180, 181; iron ships for, 317
East Indiamen with auxiliary steam, 167
Eastern Archipelago Co., 235
Eastern Navigation Co., and the _Great Eastern_, 270 _et seq._
Eckford, Henry, naval architect, 42
Edinburgh and Leith Shipping Co., 84
Edinburgh-London service, 81; by sea, 84
Edward VII., yachts of, 371
Egyptian royal yachts (Khedive’s), 372, 374
Elbing-Schichau Works, 303
Elder, Alexander, 299
Elder, Dempster & Co., 262, 298, 299
Elder, John, 229
Elder, John, & Co., Govan, 108, 109, 249, 250, 251, 282, 306
Electric lighting on steamers, 242; incandescent lamps, 281
Ellerman Line, 291
Ellice, Mr. Edward, and Chilian independence, 128
Emigrant traffic to America, 238
Engines: compound, 185, 187, 261; of earliest boats, 199 _et seq._;
gas vacuum, 211; Ogden’s, 219; multiple-expansion, 229, 256, 306;
reciprocating, 286; triple-expansion, 296; high-pressure, 306;
turbine, 307; reciprocating and turbine, 310; hot-air, 384; piston
engine development, 387
English Channel Steamship Co., 377
English river steamers, construction of, 46
Ericsson, John, hot-air engines, 384; screw propellers, 170, 215, 218
Ericsson Shipping Co., 349
Ericsson’s _Monitor_, 329
“Etoile” engine, 210
European and Australian Steam Navigation Co., 184, 185
Excursions in early steamboats, 43
Exhibition of 1851, extra traffic from, 107
Fairfield Co., Govan, 96, 109, 301
Fall River Line, 46, 47
Falmouth-Mediterranean service, 176
Fares, passenger, under competition, 74
Faron, Mr., 158
Farragut, Admiral, 175
Fauber (American engineer) and hydroplane, 386
Fawcett & Preston, engines by, 144, 148, 177
Ferguson, Mr. John, 206
Ferry steamers for railway trains, 363-366
Ficket, Francis (Ficket and Crocker), 123
Finland ice-breaker, 369
Fishbourne, Admiral, 316
Fishguard-Rosslare service, 116
Fitch, John, as inventor of steamboats, 21; his ideas taken by
Fulton, 23, 24
Fleetwood-Dublin service, 102
Fletcher, W. & A., Co., Hoboken, 51
Floating docks, 352-363
Folkstone-Boulogne service, 106
Forbes, Mr. R. B., Boston, 170
Ford’s (Edward) patent of 1646, 8
Forenade Line of Copenhagen, 117
Fortanini hydroplan, 385
Forth and Clyde Canal, 57, 59
Forwood Line, 300
France-England, first steamer communication between, 72
Franco-German War, 115
Franklin, Benjamin, 21
Freeman, Mr., of Chipping Campden, 13
French Government, experiments in warships, 338; and Crimean War
transports, 240
French steamers entering British ports, 76
French Transatlantic Co., 115
Fulton, Robert, as inventor of steamboats, 19; and drawings of
John Fitch, 23, 24; financed by Livingston, 25; his career, 25;
experiments with submarines, 26; corresponds with Lord Stanhope,
27; steamboat experiments, 28; relations with Symington, 28; the
_Clermont_, 30; list of his steamboats, 35; relations with Bell &
Miller, 61
Funnels, four, 92; masts used as, 212, 218
Fyfe, William, of Fairlie, 66
Galley, Illyrian, propelled by oxen, 6
Galway-America service, 98; to Portland, Maine, 162; to Newfoundland,
route, 162
Galway Line to America, 161-163
Gas-lighting experiment, 253
Gas-machinery propulsion, 340
General Iron Screw-Collier Co., 233
General Screw Shipping Co., 233
General Steam Navigation Co., 81-83; joint service with G.E.R., 117
Genevois (J. A.) propellers (1759), 8
German Emperor’s yacht, 371
German Navy, 303
German shipbuilding, 302; State-developed, 303
Germania shipbuilding establishment, 303
Germanischer Lloyd, 302
Germany as a Naval Power, 339
Gibbs, Antony, & Sons, 227
Gibbs, Bright & Co., 226
Glasgow ferries, 366
Glasgow-Inverness service, 100
Glasgow-Ireland service, 100
Glasgow-Liverpool service, 100. _See also_ Clyde
Glasgow, transatlantic service from, 237
Glasgow and Dublin Screw Steam Packet Co., 101
Glasgow and New York Steamship Co., 240
Gordon & Co., Deptford, 165
Goudie, James, 134
Graham, Osbourne, & Co., 349
Grand Trunk Railway, 255
Gray, Wm., & Co., Ltd., West Hartlepool, 347
Gray’s (McFarlane) steam steering gear, 241
Grayson & Leadley, Liverpool, 73
Great Central Railway Co.’s steamers, 118
Great Eastern Railway Co.’s steamers, 116-118
Great Western Railway Co.’s service to the Channel Islands, 112;
other services, 116
Great Western Steamship Co. formed, 138; and American mails, 150; and
ocean screw steamer, 220
Green, F., & Co., 294
Green, R. & H., & Co., 167, 234, 295, 373
Griffiths, John Wm., 339
Griffith’s propeller, 245
Grimsby-Continent service, 118
Guion, Mr. S. B., founds the Guion Line, 247; progress of the line,
248-251; death of Mr. Guion and line dissolved, 251
Gurley Bros., 108
Hamburg floating dock, 362
Hamburg-Amerika Linie, 267, 302, 305-306
Hamburg Reiherstieg Shipbuilding Works, 302, 303
Hamilton, William, & Co., Ltd., Port Glasgow, 348
Harland & Wolff, ships built by, 252, 289, 293, 297, 305
Harnden & Co., Boston, 155
Harroway and Dixon cantilever framed steamers, 346
Harwich-Antwerp service, 117
Harwich-Esbjerg service, 117
Harwich-Hook of Holland service, 117
Harwich-Rotterdam service, 117
Havana floating dock, 353
Hawthorn, engine by, 212
Hendersons of Glasgow, 264
Hepworth, Mr. John, 382
Hero of Alexandria and steam, 9
Heysham Harbour, 121
Heysham-Isle of Man service, 121
Hodgson, James, Liverpool, on cost of iron ships, 230; introduces
tubular iron vessels, 235
Hogg & Co., New York, 172
Hogging and sagging, 46, 194, 268
Hogging frame, Stevens’, 46, 194
Hollar’s submarine (1653), 375
Holyhead-Dublin service, 72, 103, 110
Holyhead-Greenore service, 120
Holyhead-Kingstown service, 204
Hong-Kong-Sans Francisco, White Star service, 243
Hong-Kong-Shanghai service, 203
Hook of Holland, 117
Horseley & Co., Tipton, 110
Horseley Iron Works, 195
Hough, Samuel, & Co., 100
Howden’s forced draught, 366
Howell’s “homogeneous metal,” 279
Huddart, Parker & Co. Proprietary, Ltd., 97
Hudson River steamboats, 25, 29, 30, 47; screw boats, 207
Hudson River Day Line, 49
Hulls, double, 270, 347, 375; triple, 388
Hulls, Jonathan, as inventor of the steamboat, 12
Humber, Continental service from the, 118
Hunt, Seth, of Louisiana, 45
Hydraulic propulsion, 321-325
Hydrocurve, 385
Hydroplan, 385
Hydroplane, 386
Iceberg, Guion liner’s escape from, 250
Ice-breaking steamers, 367-371
Imperial Direct West India Mail service, 299
India, first steamer built in, 202; steam communication with, 164;
Government subsidy, 164; purchase vessel, 165; mails to, 176, 177;
traffic to, 184
Indian Mutiny, P. & O. steamers employed owing to, 180
Indian rivers, navigation of, 205
Indus, the, steamers on, 202
Inglis, A. & J., Glasgow, ships built by, 86, 184, 185, 206, 374
Inman and International Line, 290-291
Inman Line, 237-243; rivalry with Cunard Line, 240; absorbed by
American Line, 256
Inman, Mr. William, 237, 243
Intercolonial Railway, Canada, 255
International Navigation Co. acquires Inman steamers, 243
Ireland, early iron ships in, 196
Ireland-England, first steam communication, 71
“Irish Brigade,” 262
Irish cross-Channel service rivalry, 74
Irish mail, &c., traffic, 102, 119
Iron barge, experimental, 195
Ironclads, advent of, 320; without masts, 333
Iron ships: first on Long Island Sound, 47; first cross-Channel, 75;
introduction of screw propellers, 97; introduction of iron, 191;
length of, 194; suitability, 193; saving in weight, 194; proposal to
build iron ships decided, 195; first vessel for commercial purposes,
195; first iron steamer, 195; growth of iron shipbuilding, 196 _et
seq._; strange vessels, 211; developments, 230; cost of iron ships,
230; tubular type, 235; first Cunarder, 243; Admiralty’s conservatism
against iron, 316
Isherwood system of construction, 348
Isle of Man, Liverpool, and Manchester Co., 96
Isle of Man Steam Packet Co., 87-94. _See also_ Man, Isle of
Ismay, Mr. T. H., 251
Ismay, Imrie & Co., 296
Jackson, Mr. W., 132
Jamaica fruit trade, 299
Jamson, Dougal, and the steamboat, story of, 62
Japanese engineers, story of, 203
Japanese submarines, 301
Japanese warship building, 339
Jersey fisheries guardship, 110
Jersey-France service, 112
Jesuit Fathers of Peking, “Memoires” of, 4
Johnston, Lieut., 164
Jointed Ship Co., 380
Jones, Sir Alfred L., 298, 299
Jones, Dr. P., and single screw, 209
Jordan, J., & Co., engines by, 248
Jouffroy d’Abbans, Marquis de, 15
Kiel naval harbour, 303
Kier, Mr., engineer, 130
Kirk, Dr. Alexander, and triple-expansion engines, 296, 306
Kirkaldy, David, drawings by, 243; and hardening of steel, 279
Klawitter, Dantzic, 303
Laird, Messrs., Birkenhead, ships built by, 75, 119, 262, 279, 316,
317, 332, 334
Laird, Alex., & Co., Messrs., 100
Laird, John, of Birkenhead, and iron shipbuilding, 196
Laird, Mr. Macgregor, 138, 261
Lake steamers, American, 51
Lange, Johann, shipyard, 302
Langley, Messrs. C., Deptford, 373
Langtry Co., of Belfast, 74
Lardner, Dr., and transatlantic steam navigation, 137
Launch, Indian custom at, 202
Law, George, and American mails, 188
Leith and Berwick Co., 84
Lever, Mr., of Manchester, 162
“Leviathans,” 270
Life-boats as paddle-boxes, 79
Life-buoys, belts, &c., 78
Lighting of ships, 253
Lindsay’s boiler-scaling apparatus, 203
Little, James, & Co., Messrs., 95-97
Littlehampton, 108
Liverpool and tugboats, 341; first iron screw steamer from, 235; dock
to accommodate American liners, 157; steam-ship companies, 77
Liverpool, voyage of the _Elizabeth_ to, from Glasgow, 64
Liverpool-Bristol service, 100
Liverpool-Dublin mail service, 102
Liverpool-Isle of Man service, 87-94, 96
Liverpool-Kingstown service, 144
Liverpool-London service, 98, 99
Liverpool-New York service, 240
Liverpool-Philadelphia service, 240
Liverpool-Valparaiso service, 264
Liverpool and Philadelphia Steamship Co., 238
Liverpool, New York, and Philadelphia Steamship Co., 240
Livingston, Chancellor R., and Morey’s steamboats, 24; finances
Fulton, 25; experiments in steam propulsion, 208
Livingstone expedition, steel steamer for, 279
Livingston’s “Historical Account of the Application of Steam for the
Propelling of Boats,” 19
Lloyd’s, first steamer entered at, 100
Lodge-Muirhead wireless telegraphy, 121
London and tugboats, 341; shipbuilding, 233-234; City Corporation
employees and the Watermen’s Co., 80; County Council steamers, 367;
river steamboat service opened, 66
London, Glasgow to, first steamer, 66
London-Hamburg service, 117
London-Margate service, 70
London and Edinburgh Shipping Co., 83-85
London and Leith Shipping Co., 84
London and North-Western Railway Co.’s steamers, 119-121
London and South-Western Railway Co.’s steamers, 109-116; Manx boat
purchased from, 93
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co.’s steamers, 106-109
London, Leith, and Edinburgh Shipping Co., 74
Long Island Sound, First iron steamboat on, 47
Long Island Sound Line, 40
Longitudinal system of ship construction, 268, 348
Louis Philippe of France, escape of, 113
Louvre Museum, Kirkaldy’s designs in, 246
Lund, Mr. W., 297
Lungley, Mr., ship built by, 264
Lyttleton, Wm., 207
McDougall, Capt., 55
McGregor, Mr. John, and early Chinese paddle-wheels, 4
McGregor, Laird & Co., 196
MacIver, Mr. David, and Mr. S. Cunard, 150
McKean, McLarty, and Lament, 254
Mackenzie, William, master of the _Comet_, 63
McKinnon & Co., Glasgow, 181
MacLachlan, Archibald, 66
McQueen, Robert, 39, 52
Mahmoudieh Canal, 179
Mails, officer in charge of, to West Indies, 190
Mails to America, 149; to India, 176, 177; to Ireland, 102
Makaroff, Vice-Admiral, 367
Malcomson’s London and Dublin Line, 99
Malta floating dock, 363
Man, Isle of, first steamers at, 88; first built there, 89; history
of the Manx service, 87-94; Barrow service, 96
Manby, Mr., 195
Maples and Morris, Messrs., 106, 107
Mare’s Shipyard, Blackwall. _See_ Ditchburn and Mare
Marine engines. _See_ Engines
Marinsky Canal, 364
Maryland Steel Co., Baltimore, floating docks, 358, 362
Maschinenbau-Gesellschaft, 303
Mason, Mr., 262
Masts on steam-ships, 41; used as funnels, 212, 218; tripod, 332; on
warships, 338
Mastless steamers, 346
Maudslay, Sons & Field, founder of the firm, 70; engines by, 148,
201, 202, 233, 253, 319, 372; connection with the Royal Navy, 311;
yards of, 234
Maury, Lieut., 241
Mediterranean ports, 111
Mediterranean service, 267
Merchants’ Shipping Co., 47
Mersey ferries, 366
Messageries Maritimes de France, 267
Mexican Government and iron frigate, 316
Mexican War, 174
Middleton Yard, Hartlepool, 305
Midland Railway Co.’s steamers, 121
Milford-Rosslare service, 116
Millard and Kirby, Messrs., and Fulton’s _Clermont_, 50
Miller and Ravenhill, engines by, 187, 372
Miller, Patrick, 57, 58, 388
Mills, Mr. Edward, 154
Mississippi River steamers, 53; Fitch’s steamboat, 23; Fulton’s
steamboat, 32; _Moselle_ and _Oroonoko_ blown up, 53; intentional
collisions, 53
Mitchell, Mr. Charles, 212
Monaco, Prince of, yacht of, 373
“Monitors,” 334
Monroe, President, 123
Moore, Admiral Sir Grayham, 217
Moray, John, on James Rumsay as inventor of steamboats, 19
Morey, Samuel, invents a steamboat, 24
Morgan Combine, 228
Morisot’s “Orbis Maritimi,” 6
Morland, Sir S., 10
Motor-boats (hydroplane), 385; (hydrocurve), 385
Napier, Admiral Sir Charles, 195
Napier, David, and the boiler of the _Comet_, 63; and the shape of
bows of steamers, 71; provides engines, 72
Napier, Robert & Sons, engines by, 72, 88, 89, 147, 151, 157; and Mr.
S. Cunard, 149; present engine of the _Comet_ to South Kensington
Museum, 64; and David Kirkaldy, 243; and high-pressure boilers of
steel, 279
Napoleon III., yacht of, 373
National Line, 254
Naval Construction Co., Barrow, 99
Navy, Royal, steam-power and the, 311-340; last wooden battleship,
319; first twin-screw boat, 328; ironclads without masts, 333;
torpedo boats, 336; destroyers, 336; development, 336
Neilson, Walter N., 229
New England Ocean Steamship Co., 155
New York celebrates the arrival of early steamers, 141
New York-Aspinwall mails, 188
New York-Bremen service, 154
New York-Chagres line, 188
New York-Havana service, 189
New York-Liverpool, lines in 1850, 155
New York and Havre Steam Navigation Co., 154
New York Shipbuilding Co., Camden, N.J., 51
New Zealand Government subsidy, 185; service to, 298
New Zealand Shipping Co., 310
Newcomen and Savery, 11
Newfoundland Government and mails, 162
Newhaven-Dieppe service, 106
Newport News Shipbuilding, &c., Co., 340
Niger exploration, 280
Norddeutsche Werft, 303
Norddeutscher Lloyd, 267, 302, 303-305
Normand, A, Havre, 373
North Lancashire Railways, 102, 103
North Sea, 84
Northumberland Straits passenger service, 370
Oak, scarcity of, and use of iron for ships, 195
Ocean liner, express, modern type of, 252
Ocean Steam Navigation Co., 154
Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 252
Ogden, Mr., American Consul, 219
Oil-tank steamers, 348, 351
Oldham’s revolving bars, 195
Orient Line, 264, 291, 294-296
Orient-Pacific Line, 295
Orient Royal Line, 295
Original Steam Packet Co., 72
Ostend-Dover service, 309
Oude, Rajah of, generosity of, 165
Ouseburn engine works, 306
Overcrowding passenger steamers, 79
“Overland Route” to India. _See_ Suez
Pacific coast of S. America trade, 187
Pacific and Australasian Co., 239
Pacific Mail Line, 188
Pacific Steam Navigation Co., 186, 187, 189, 191, 229, 263, 291, 294,
295
Paddle-wheels, evolution of, 1; motive-power, 1; animal-driven, 2;
early forms, 2, 4; early experiments, 10, 12; Jouffroy’s invention,
17; Morey’s inventions, 24; Roosevelt’s invention, 25; Patrick
Miller’s invention, 58; vertical, 25; disconnecting, 33; Seward’s
invention, 110; development in construction, 197-199; duck-foot
paddles, 207; elliptical, 208; horizontal centrifugal, 208;
superseded by screw, 191
Paddle _v._ screw races, 259; tests, 312
Paddle-boxes as lifeboats, 78
Palmer, Sir Charles, 214
Palmer Bros. & Co., ships built by, 114, 213, 247, 248; and rolled
armour plates, 385
Panama-Astoria service, 189
Panama-San Francisco mails, 188, 189
Panama, New Zealand, and Australian Royal Mail Co., 185
Panama Railway, 174, 187, 191, 262
Panama route, 187
Panciroli’s “_Rerum memorabilium_,” 6
Papal yacht, 372
Papin, Dr. Dennis, inventions of, 11
Paris Exhibition, 1878, traffic, 109
Parsee custom at launch, 202
Parsons, Hon. A. C., on turbines, 307
Parsons turbines, 118, 307, 338
Passengers carried by _Sirius_ across Atlantic, 141; first steamer
for passengers and cargo, 72
Patersen, Capt. Robert, 86
Paterson of Bristol, 141, 221
Paul, Capt. Fred, R.N., 113
Paulding, James Kirke, 339
Peacock, Capt. George, and mechanical swan yacht, 383
Pearse & Co., Stockton-on-Tees, 205
Penarth floating dock, 359
Peninsular and Oriental (P. & O.) Co., incorporated, 178; first
steamer to India, 179; transport over Suez isthmus, 179; services
to India and China, 180; subsidy for Indian mails, 180; Australian
service, 180; difficulties on opening of Suez Canal, 182; overland
route through Egypt closed, 182; ships, 260-261; increase of size
of ships, 291, 293; and Australian trade, 294; acquires Blue Anchor
Line, 297
Peninsular Steam Navigation Co., 176-178; becomes the P. & O. Co., 178
Penn, John, and Son, engines by, 226, 233, 260; oscillating engines,
201, 314; number of engines fitted by, 315; for the Crimean War, 319;
and screw bearings, 219
Périer’s fire pump, 16
Perkins’ tri-compound engines, 306
Peru, 189
Petroleum steamers, 351
Philadelphia Line, 43
Philippines, floating dock for, 362
Phillips, Sir Richard, 69
Pirrie, Lord, 298
Porter’s patent anchor, 223
Portsmouth-Ryde, 232
Potomac, early steamboats on the, 20
Powell (H. & Co.) Line, 99
Propeller, screw. _See_ Screws
Propelling vessels by recoil from cannon, 8; by animals, 2; by steam,
early experiments, 10-11; by pumping water, 12; by screws, 29. _See
also_ Paddle-wheels
Propelling without paddles, reward for, 210
Pyroscaphe, the, 15
Quebec and Halifax Steam Navigation Co., 134
Racing, Ocean, 247; steamboat, 53; paddle _v._ screw, 259
Railway companies and their steamships, 102-121
Railway trains, ferrying of, 363-366
Ramage and Ferguson, Ltd., Leith, 375
Rams, 329
Ramsay’s (David) patent boats (1618), 6
Ramus, Rev. C. M., and hydroplane, 386
Randolph, Charles, 229
Randolph, Elder & Co., 229
Rangoon wooden dock, 354
Rate wars, 74, 80, 94
Rateau turbines, 307
Red Cross Line, 231
Red Sea steamer service, 166; to the Mediterranean transport, 179
Red Star Line, 256
Refrigerators, 298
Registration of steamers, 77
Reid, Mr. E. J., designs _Koenig Wilhelm_, 333
Reid’s =[U]= bow, 332
Reiherstieg yard, Hamburg, 302, 303
Rennie, Capt. George, 183
Rennie’s “Aberdeen” Line, 183
Rennie, G. & J., engines by, 233, 313; and Ship Propeller Co., 216;
floating docks, 355, 363
Renwick, Dr. James, 29
Repairs to steam-ships, 300
Reversing machinery, 70
Richardson Bros. & Co., 238, 239
Rivalry between steam-ship companies, 73
Roberts, Lieut., _R.N._, 138, 145
Robertson, John, 62
Robertson, Robert, engineer, 63
Robinson and Russell, 232, 319
Roebuck, Dr., 86
Rogers, Capt., of the _Savannah_, 125
Rogers, Moses, pioneer steam navigator, 30, 123
Roosevelt, Nicholas J., invents paddle-boat, 25; associated with
Fulton, 42; experiments in steam propulsion, 208
Ropner & Sons, Ltd., 348
Rostock “Neptun” yard, 302
Rotterdam, railway round, 117
Rouss, Mr. W. P., yacht of, 374
Royal Academy, steam-ship designs exhibited at, 245
Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 185, 189-191, 262-263, 291, 295, 299-300
Royal Netherlands Steamship Co., 91
Royal yachts, 371-374
Rubic and Blaker, Northam, 110
Rudders, bow, 106; balanced for turbine vessels, 105; submerged, 290
Rumsay, James, as the inventor of the steamboat, 19
Rumsay Society, 21
Rupert, Prince Palatine, and boat propeller, 11
Rushen, Mr. P. C., on Jonathan Hulls’ invention, 14
Russell & Co., clipper built by, 173
Russell, Robinson & Co., 107
Russell, Mr. Scott, and the _Wave Queen_, 107; and wave-line
construction, 236, 316, 320; shipbuilding on the Thames, 204, 234;
designs _Victoria_, 263; and the _Great Eastern_, 268, 278
Russian Government ice-breaker, 367; Navy floating dock, 363; royal
yachts, 371, 373
Ruthven’s hydraulic propulsion, 208, 321-325
“Sag,” 46, 194, 268
Sail power on liners, 158
Sailing clippers, American, fast passages of, 153
Sailing vessels, engines put into, 135, 136; vessel with steam as
auxiliary crosses Atlantic, 122; steam auxiliary to, 164-192
St. George Steam Packet Co., 72, 94, 97, 100, 101
St. Lawrence River ice-breaker, 369
Saloons above deck first fitted, 206; oscillating, 253
Samuda Bros., 204, 234
San Francisco Union Iron Works, 340
Saône, paddle-steamer on the (1783), 17
Sassnitz-Trelleborg railway ferry, 365
Sault Ste. Marie Canal, 52
Savery, Thomas, invention of, 11
Scarborough and Isaacs, Messrs., 122
Schlick balancing of engines, 120
Schultz turbines, 388
Scott, Capt., of _Rising Star_, 131
Scott, Mr. John, figure-head of, 318
Scott, Russell & Co., Millwall, 204
Scott, Sinclair & Co., Greenock, 318
Screw propellers, invention of 29; first Manx steamer to use, 92;
for sea-going steamers, 97; supersede paddle-wheels, 191; tried in
1802, 192; earliest attempts to apply, 206, 207; movement of vessels
with single screw, 209; twin-screws, 210; first ocean steamer with
twin-screws, 265; fantastic forms, 215; first sea-going vessel with
screw, 216; definitely adopted, 219; lifting propeller, 253; for long
voyages, 256; adopted for mail boats, 262; multiple screws, 310;
first vessel in the Royal Navy with, 313; removable screws, 318; twin
screws, 325; tests of twin screws, 326
Sea-sickness, steamers to prevent, 253, 377-379
Sea voyage, first British steamer to make a, 64
Seamen, pay of, in 1821, 132
Seaward and Capel, Limehouse, 169
Seaward, J., & Co., Millwall, 373
Seaward’s vibrating paddles, 110
Seine, first iron steamer on the, 195
Sewall & Co., 194
Sewell and Faron, 158
Shaw, Savill & Albion Co., 297
Shelter deck, 344
Ship Propeller Co., 216
Shipbuilding, German competition, 302. _See also_ Thames
Ships named:
_Aaron Manby_, 195
_Aberdeen_, 296, 307
_Achilles_, 315
_Aconcagua_, 264
_Active_, 311
_Ada_, 116
_Adelaide_, 269
_Adirondack_, 48, 170
_Admiral Moorsom_, 119
_Adriatic_, 161, 163, 253, 289
_Aetna_, 35
_Africa_, 153, 155
_African_, 176
_Agamemnon_, 315
_Aguila_, 112
_Ajax_, 315
_Alabama_, 175
_Alaska_, 172, 250
_Alberta_, 116
_Alecto_, 312
_Alexandra_ (L. & S.W.R.), 116
_Alexandra_ (L. & N.W.R.), 119
_Alexandra_ (Royal Yacht), 371
_Alice_, 115
_Alida_, 49
_Alliance_, 113, 114
_Alma_, 114, 116
_Amazon_, 300
_America_ (Cunard Co.), 152, 245, 286
_America_ (National Line), 254
_America_ (Yacht), 158
_American Turtle_, 376
_Amerika_, 305
_Amethyst_, 309, 335
_Anglia_, 104, 120
_Anglo-Saxon_, 255
_Annette_, 173
_Antarctic_, 157
_Antelope_, 235
_Antrim_, 121
_Apollo_, 110
_Aquila_, 107
_Arabia_, 153
_Arago_, 154
_Aragon_, 300
_Araguaya_, 300
_Arcadia_, 151
_Archimedes_, 216, 222
_Arctic_, 157-160
_Argyle_, 66
_Ariadne_, 110, 316
_Arizona_, 249
_Arkansas_, 340
_Armenia_, 51
_Arrogant_, H.M.S., 314
_Arundel_, 109
_Asia_, 153, 157
_Assiniboia_, 301
_Assyrian_, 316
_Astarte_, 255
_Asturias_, 300
_Atalanta_, 116, 110, 111, 166
_Athenia_, 255
_Athole_, 206
_Atlantic_, 156, 158
_Atrato_, 271
_Augusta_, 99
_Aurania_, 281
_Aurora_, 327
_Austral_, 295
_Australasian_, 296
_Avoca_, 99
_Avon_, 222, 300
_Ayrshire Lassie_, 106
_Balmoral Castle_, 292
_Baltic_, 157, 158, 181, 287, 288
_Bann_, 319
_Banshee_, 119
_Barbarossa_, 304
_Baron Osy_, 269
_Barracouta_, 175
_Basilisk_, 313
_Bay State_, 47
_Belfast_, 72
_Belgic_, 253
_Bélier_, 334
_Bellerophon_, 80, 315, 334
_Ben-my-Chree_, 89, 92, 93
_Berenice_, 166
_Bertha_, 116
_Bessemer_, 253, 379
_Birkenhead_, 317
_Black Eagle_, 314
_Black Prince_, 315
_Bogota_, 229
_Borussia_, 267, 305
_Bremen_, 267
_Brighton_, 109, 112
_Bristol_, 47, 337
_Britannia_, 151, 154
_Britannic_, 253
_British Queen_, 138, 145-147, 169, 216
_Brittany_, 109, 114, 115, 116
_Brune_, 319
_Buenos Ayrean_, 281
_Buffalo_, 35
_C. Vanderbilt_, 49
_C. W. Morse_, 48
_Calais_, 105
_Calais-Douvres_, 378
_Caledonia_, 64, 151
_California_, 188
_Callao_, 229
_Caloric_, 384
_Calvados_, 109
_Cambria_, 104
_Cambria_ (Cunard Co.), 151
_Cambria_ (L. & N.W.R.), 120
_Camden_, 35
_Camilla_, 110
_Campania_, 282, 287
_Canada_, 152, 245
_Canadian_, 254
_Cape of Good Hope_, 181
_Captain_, 334
_Car of Neptune_, 35, 36, 38, 44
_Carbon_, 235
_Carmania_, 282, 285, 309
_Caronia_, 282
_Carpathia_, 283
_Carron_, 79, 86, 176
_Cassandra_, 255
_Castalia_, 377
_Cedric_, 288
_Celtic_, 253, 288
_Cerberus_, 335, 376
_Chancellor Livingston_, 35, 42, 43
_Charles Wetmore_, 55
_Charleston_, 340
_Charlotte Dundas_, 28, 59, 135, 199
_Cherbourg_, 116
_Chicago_, 248
_Chili_, 187
_Chimborazo_, 264, 295
_China_, 246, 247, 293
_Cincinnati_, 305
_City of Baltimore_, 239
_City of Belfast_, 121
_City of Berlin_, 241, 242
_City of Bristol_, 242
_City of Brussels_, 241
_City of Chicago_, 243
_City of Cleveland_, 54
_City of Dublin_, 72
_City of Edinburgh_, 81
_City of Glasgow_, 96, 237
_City of Limerick_, 97
_City of Manchester_, 238
_City of New York_, 240, 256, 290
_City of Paris_, 241, 246, 256, 290
_City of Philadelphia_, 239
_City of Pittsburg_, 239
_City of Rome_, 242
_City of Washington_, 239
_Claremont_, 307
_Clermont_, 20, 29 _et seq._, 49, 135
_Cleveland_, 305
_Clyde_, 64
_Cobra_, 308
_Coffee Mill_, 66
_Collier_, 107
_Collingwood_, 55
_Colombia_, 176
_Colombo_, 181
_Colorado_, 248
_Columbia_, 114, 116, 151
_Columbus_, 288
_Comet_ (Bell’s), 62, 135
_Comet_ (Dawson’s), 70
_Comet_ (French Co.), 112
_Commerce_, 73
_Commonwealth_, 48
_Conde de Patmella_, 122
_Confiance_, 176
_Connector_, 379
_Connemara_, 120
_Coogee_, 96
_Copenhagen_, 118
_Cotopaxi_, 295
_Countess of Dublin_, 98
_Countess of Erne_, 119
_Countess of Strathmore_, 214
_Courier_, 113
_Craster Hall_, 348
_Crœsus_, 233
_Cuckoo_, H.M.S., 110
_Culloden_, 106
_Curaçoa_, 133
_Cuzco_, 264, 295
_Cyclops_, 316
_Cygnus_, 112
_Cymba_, 99
_Dakota_, 248
_Damascus_, 296
_Dane_, 183
_Daniel Drew_, 51
_Dantzig_, 319
_Dasher_, H.M.S., 110
_De Witt Clinton_, 45, 46
_Dee_, 262
_Defiance_, 69
_Delaware_, 340
_Delcomyn_, 297
_Delta_, 260
_Demologos_, 35
_Destroyer_, 339
_Deutschland_, 305
_Devastation_, 333
_Devonshire_, 97
_Diana_, 115
_Dieppe_, 107, 109
_Dispatch_, 113
_Dominion_, H.M.S., 358
_Doncaster_, 207
_Donegal_, 121
_Dora_, 93
_Douglas_, 90, 93
_Douro_, 263
_Dover_, 105, 317
_Dreadnought_, 309, 315, 335
_Drottning Victoria_, 365
_Duchess of Albany_, 116
_Duchess of Buccleuch_, 96
_Duchess of Connaught_, 116
_Duchess of Devonshire_, 96, 121
_Duchess of Edinburgh_, 116
_Duchess of Fife_, 116
_Duchess of Kent_, 116
_Duchess of Sutherland_, 119
_Duchess of York_, 106
_Duke of Cornwall_, 97
_Duke of Sutherland_, 119
_Duke of Wellington_, 272
_Dumbarton Castle_, 70
_Dumfries_, 113
_Duncannon_, 75
_Dundee_, 87
_Dwarf_, 313
_Eagle_, 376
_Earl Grey_, 370
_Earl of Hardwicke_, 167
_Earl of Liverpool_, 82
_Earl Spencer_, 120
_Echo_, 176
_Echunga_, 347
_Eclipse_, 54
_Eden_, 309, 335
_Edinburgh_, 240
_Edith_, 119, 172, 328
_Egypt_, 293
_Eleanor_, 120
_Elizabeth_, 64
_Ella_, 115, 116
_Ellan Vannin_, 91
_Empire_, 48
_Empire of Troy_, 48
_Empress_, 105
_Empress of Russia_, 35
_Empress Queen_, 93
_Encounter_, H.M.S., 314
_Endeavour_, 201
_Enterprise_, 43, 165-166, 306
_Ericsson_, 384
_Erin_, 254
_Ermack_, 367, 368, 369
_Esk_, 262
_Etna_, 45
_Etruria_, 281, 282
_Europa_, 152, 245
_Excellent_, 325
_Experiment_, 328
_Express_, 113
_F. P. Smith_, 216
_Faid Gihaad_, 372
_Fairy_, 371
_Falcon_, 165
_Falken_, 373
_Fannie_, 115
_Far East_, 265
_Fenella_, 92
_Firebrand_, 176
_Firefly_, 35, 41, 44, 45
_Flora_, 325
_Florida_, 288
_Forth_, 191
_Foyle_, 98
_Francis B. Ogden_, 218
_Franklin_, 43, 154
_Frederica_, 116
_Frolic_, 96
_Fulton_, 35, 41, 154
_Gaelic_, 253
_Galtee-More_, 120
_Garonne_, 264, 295
_Garry Owen_, 196, 221
_Gascony_, 349
_Gemini_, 376
_General Admiral Apraxine_, 368
_George Canning_, 74
_George Washington_, 304
_Georgia_, 188
_Germanic_, 253
_Geyser_, 313
_Glasgow_, 86, 240
_Glatton_, 334
_Glen Cove_, 50
_Gloire_, 320
_Gorgon_, 316
_Grace_, 106
_Grand Turk_, 111
_Great Britain_, 217, 221, 256, 271
_Great Eastern_, 193, 230, 241, 268-278, 284, 288
_Great Liverpool_, 178
_Great Western_, 138, 141-144, 145, 147-148, 150, 169, 220, 238, 271
_Greenock_, 88, 318
_Griffin_, 115
_Guadeloupe_, 316
_Guernsey_, 116
_Hansa_, 301
_Havre_, 113, 114
_Hazard_, 331
_Hebe_, 315, 327
_Helvetia_, 254
_Hendrick Hudson_, 48, 49
_Henry Bell_, 73, 88, 100
_Henry Clay_, 170
_Her Majesty_, 232
_Herald_, 96
_Hercules_, 315, 332
_Hermann_, 154
_Hermes_, 176
_Hibernia_, 71, 102, 104, 120, 151
_Hilda_, 115, 116
_Himalaya_, 180, 260, 271
_Hindostan_, 179
_Hohenzollern_, 371
_Ho-Nam_, 206
_Honfleur_, 108, 116
_Hope_, 36, 38, 39, 45, 69, 107
_Howe_, 315
_Hudson_, 300
_Hugh Lindsay_, 166
_Humber_, 64
_Humboldt_, 154
_Iberia_, 177
_Idaho_, 248
_Immacolata Concezione_, 372
_Immingham_, 118
_Inconstant_, 315, 333
_Independencia_, 315
_Indian_, 254
_Indian Empire_, 162
_Industry_, 66
_Invincible_, 336
_Iolanda_, 375
_Irishman_, 100, 101
_Iroquois_, 351
_Isa_, 306
_Isabella_, 120
_Italy_, 109, 254
_Ivernia_, 283
_James Joicey_, 307
_James Watt_, 81, 100
_Jerome Napoleon_, 373
_John Bowes_, 211, 213
_John Elder_, 264
_John W. Richmond_, 46
_Jumna_, 202
_Kaiser Wilhelm II._, 287, 305
_Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse_, 304, 305
_Kaiserin Auguste Victoria_, 305
_Kangaroo_, 239
_Karamea_, 298
_Kate_, 327
_Kearsarge_, 176, 340
_Kentucky_, 340
_King Edward_, 309
_King Orry_, 89, 92
_Kingfisher_, 83
_Kite_, 124
_Koenig Wilhelm_, 333
_Koenig Wilhelm II._, 305
_Kronprinz Wilhelm_, 305
_Kronprinzessin Cecilie_, 305
_La France_, 259
_La Plata_, 262
_Lady de Saumarez_, 110
_Lady Derby_, 233
_Lady Eglinton_, 98, 245
_Lady Grey_, 369
_Lady Hudson-Kinahan_, 99
_Lady Martin_, 99
_Lady Olive_, 99
_Lady Roberts_, 99
_Lady Wodehouse_, 98
_Lady Wolseley_, 99
_Ladybird_, 107
_Lancashire Witch_, 96
_Larriston_, 245
_Laura_, 116
_Laurentic_, 289
_Le Nord_, 105
_Leinster_, 204
_Leven_, 72
_Leviathan_, 270, 276
_Lewis_, 155
_Lexington_, 45, 46
_Liffey_, 73
_Lightning_, 264, 311, 336
_Lily_, 119
_Lima_, 229
_Livadia_, 373
_Liverpool_, 145
_London_, 87
_Londonderry_, 121
_Lord Beresford_, 110
_Lord Nelson_, 335
_Lord W. Bentinck_, 202
_Lord Warden_, 105
_Louisa Ann Fanny_, 267
_Louisiana_, 175, 254
_Lucania_, 282
_Lusitania_ (Cunard Co.), 279, 282, 309
_Lusitania_ (Orient Line), 264, 294
_Ly-ee-moon_, 203
_Lydia_, 116
_Lymington_, 116
_Lyons_, 107, 109
_Ma Robert_, 279
_Mabel_, 106
_Macedonia_, 293
_Madagascar_, 183
_Magenta_, 330
_Majestic_, 69, 96, 287
_Malvina_, 245
_Malwa_, 293
_Manhattan_, 247
_Mantua_, 292
_Manx Queen_, 96
_Manxman_, 121
_Marathon_, 297
_Marco_, 107
_Margaret and Jessie_, 90
_Marie Henriette_, 309
_Margery_, 66, 69
_Marmora_, 293
_Mars_, 98
_Mary_, 114,
_Mary Augusta_, 259
_Mary Powell_, 50
_Marylebone_, 118
_Massachusetts_, 170-172
_Masterful_, 100
_Mauretania_, 279, 282, 309
_Medusa_, 316
_Megantic_, 289
_Megna_, 202
_Mermaid_, 97, 313
_Merrimac_, 248, 329
_Mersey_, 73, 331
_Messenger_, 176
_Meteor_, 176
_Meteor_, H.M.S., 110
_Midland Prince_, 55
_William M. Mills_, 52
_Miltiades_, 296, 297
_Milwaukee_, 300
_Minas Geraes_, 338
_Minnesota_, 248
_Minotaur_, H.M.S., 315, 332, 333
_Minx_, H.M.S., 314
_Miramar_, 373
_Missouri_, 340
_Mohawk_, 336
_Moldavia_, 293
_Mona_, 88, 89, 92, 93
_Monarch_, 82, 83, 110
_Mona’s Isle_, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 150
_Mona’s Queen_, 90, 93
_Mongolia_, 293
_Monitor_, 329
_Monitoria_, 349
_Monkey_, 311
_Montana_, 248
_Mooltan_, 261, 293
_Morea_, 293
_C. W. Morse_, 48
_Moselle_, 53
_Munster_, 204
_Mute_, 35
_Narragansett_, 45
_Natchez_, 54
_Navahoe_, 351
_Nebraska_, 248
_Nemesis_, 316
_Neptune_, 315
_Nevada_, 248
_New Jersey_, 219
_New Orleans_, 35, 42
_Newhaven_, 109
_Niagara_, 152, 245
_Nicholai_, 169
_Nicolaieff_, 363
_Niger_, 313
_Nile_, 98
_Nimrod_, 316
_Nitocris_, 316
_Nix_, 319
_Norfolk_, 300
_Norman_, 183
_Normandy_, 109, 113, 114
_North American_, 255
_North Carolina_, 340
_North River_, 35, 36, 41
_Northampton_, 315
_Northman_, 100
_Northumberland_, 315
_Norwich_, 49
_Nottingham_, 97
_Novelty_, 217
_Oberon_, 351
_Ocean_, 140
_Oceanic_, 252, 287, 288
_Ogden, Francis B._, 218
_Ohio_, 188
_Old Colony_, 47
_Olive Branch_, 35, 43
_Olympic_, 289
_Ontario_, 53
_Oregon_, 48, 49, 188, 250, 282
_Orient_, 295
_Oriental_, 178
_Orlando_, 315
_Orleans_, 107
_Oroonoko_, 53
_Orvieto_, 292
_Oscar_, 64
_Osterley_, 292
_Otaki_, 310
_Otranto_, 292
_Pacific_, 157, 161, 188, 204, 264
_Pakeha_, 298
_Pallas_, 266, 331
_Pallion_, 349
_Paragon_, 35, 41, 44
_Paris_, 107, 108, 109
_Parisian_, 281
_Pas de Calais_, 105
_Patriarch_, 296
_Patricia_, 305
_Paul Paix_, 349
_Pawnee_, 339
_Penelope_, 315
_Pennsylvania_, 254
_Pericles_, 297
_Peru_, 187
_Perseverance_, 23, 36, 38, 45
_Persia_, 243, 271, 293
_Perth_, 87
_Peterhoff_, 373
_Peveril_, 93
_Philadelphia_, 44
_Phlegethon_, 316
_Phœnix_, 29, 123, 135
_Pilgrim_, 47
_Pioneer_, 53
_Plymouth_, 47
_Pole Star_, 371
_Powerful_, 100
_Powhatan_, 45
_President_, 146-148, 169
_President Grant_, 305
_President Lincoln_, 305
_Prince of Orange_, 66
_Prince of Wales_, 93, 96
_Princess Alice_, 373
_Princess Charlotte_, 66
_Princess Ena_, 116
_Princess Margaret_, 116
_Princess of Wales_, 106
_Princesse Clementine_, 309
_Princesse Elisabeth_, 309
_Prinz Heinrich_, 304
_Prinz Hendrick_, 332
_Prince Regent Luitpold_, 304
_Propeller_, 162
_Propontis_, 306
_Providence_, 47
_Puritan_, 47
_Q.E.D._, 211
_Quebec_, 140
_Queen_, 105
_Queen, The_, 254, 309
_Queen Alexandra_, 309
_Queen of the Isle_, 89
_Queen Victoria_, 93, 96
_Rainbow_, 197, 280
_Rangatira_, 298
_Rariton_, 35
_Rathmore_, 120
_Rattler_, 312, 337
_Recruit_, 319
_Regent_, 70
_Release_, 174
_Rennes_, 108
_Republic_, 288
_Rhadamanthus_, 311
_Rhaetia_, 302
_Rhenus_, 269
_Rhode Island_, 90
_Richmond_, 35, 41, 43, 45
_Richmond, John W._, 46
_Rising Empire_, 186
_Rising Star_ (or _Sun_), 126-133
_Rob Roy_, 72
_Robert Bruce_, 96
_Robert Burns_, 111
_Robert F. Stockton_, 218
_Robert Fulton_, 44, 51
_Roodezee_, 361
_Rose_ (Dublin), 97, 98
_Rose_ (L. & N.W.R.), 119
_Rose_ (Merchantman), 127
_Rosstrevor_, 120
_Rothesay Castle_, 106
_Rotomahana_, 281
_Rouen_, 107
_Rowan_, 101
_Royal George_, 83
_Royal Tar_, 176
_Royal William_ (Canadian), 134, 136
_Royal William_ (Dublin Co.), 144
_Ruahine_, 186, 292
_Rugia_, 302
_Russia_, 241, 246
_Safa-el-bahr_, 374
_St. George_, 72, 94, 95
_St. John_, 48
_St. Louis_, 291
_St. Malo_, 113
_St. Patrick_, 72
_St. Paul_, 291
_Salamander_, 307, 312, 319, 320
_Sampo_, 369
_Sans Pareil_, H.M.S., 358
_Sapphire_, 335
_Sarah Sands_, 231, 235
_Satsuma_, 335
_Saturnia_, 255
_Savannah_, 30, 122-126, 136, 199
_Scotia_, 104, 120, 246, 369
_Sea-Horse_, 72
_Sea King_, 173
_Sea Swallow_, 327
_Seraing_, 321
_Sexta_, 306
_Shamrock_, 97, 119
_Shannon_, 97, 262
_Sharkie_, 372
_Shenandoah_, 170, 174, 175, 194
_Sirius_, 138-144
_Smith, F. P._, 216
_Snaefell_, 91, 92
_Solent_, 116
_Sophia Jane_, 94
_Sorata_, 295
_South-Western_, 113, 116
_Southampton_, 113, 114, 115, 116
_Sprague_, 199
_Spreewald_, 305
_Standart_, 371
_Stanley_, 119
_Stella_, 116
_Stockton, Robert F._, 218
_Suevic_, 300
_Sultan_, 314, 315
_Superb_, 96
_Sussex_, 109
_Swan of the Exe_, 383
_Swift_, 73
_Syren_, 300
_Talbot_, 72
_Tartar_, 336
_Tasmanian_, 184
_Taureau_, 329
_Tay_, 64
_Telica_, 187
_Terror_, 334
_Teucer_, 346
_Teutonic_, 287
_Thames_, 66, 86, 191, 202
_Theodor_, 247
_Thermopylæ_, 296
_Thetis_, 166, 319
_Thor_, 348
_The Three Brothers_, 173
_Thunder_, 264
_Thunderer_, 333
_Titanic_, 289
_Toronto_, 218
_Town of Liverpool_, 73
_Transit_, 111
_Transporter_, 301
_Trent_, 262, 277
_Trident_, 82, 83, 317
_Trinculo_, 351
_Trouville_, 109
_Trusty_, 331
_Turbinia_, 308
_Tynwald_, 89, 90, 93
_Ulster_, 204
_Ultonia_, 283
_Umbria_, 281, 282
_Unicorn_, 151
_Union_, 45
_United Kingdom_, 134
_Valetta_, 260
_Vandalia_, 52
_Vanderbilt_, 172
_C. Vanderbilt_, 49
_Velox_, 309
_Vera_, 116
_Vernon_, 167, 169
_Vesta_, 159
_Vesuvius_, 35, 45
_Viceroy_, 162
_Victoria_, 105, 109, 116, 263, 269, 319
_Victoria and Albert_, 314, 371
_Victorian_, 281, 309
_Viking_, 93
_Violet_, 119
_Viper_, 308, 323
_Virginia_, 254, 340
_Virginian_, 281, 309
_Vixen_, 323
_Vulcan_, 195
_Waldensian_, 183
_Walk in the Water_, 51
_Waratah_, 297
_Warrior_, 315, 320, 333
_Washington_, 35, 154
_Waterloo_, 72
_Watersprite_, 111
_Waterwitch_, 96, 208, 321
_Watt_, 140
_Wave Queen_, 107
_Waveney_, 335
_Waverley_, 114, 115
_Wellington_, 167
_Weser_, 302, 319
_West Virginia_, 340
_Wildfire_, H.M.S., 110
_William Cutting_, 44, 45
_William Fawcett_, 111
_William Hutt_, 214
_William M. Mills_, 52
_William the Fourth_, 95
_Wilmington_, 340
_Winans_, 380
_Winchester_, 374
_Wisconsin_, 248
_Wolf_, 115, 116
_Wonder_, 112, 113
_Wyoming_, 248
_Ysabel Secunda_, 135
_Zambesi_, 294
_Zwartezee_, 361
Shire Line, 300
Shoreham Harbour, 106
Shorter, Capt., 207
Siemens-Martin steel process, 280
Sierra Leone-West Indies service, 261
Simonson of New York, 173
Slidell, Mr., 262
Sligo Steam Navigation Co., 101
Smack, journey by, Scotland to London, 85
Smeaton, John, 86
Smith, Caleb, of Liverpool, 177
Smith, Sir Francis Pettit, 215
Smith, Capt. George, 79
Smith, Junius (or Julius), 138
Smith, Capt. “Target,” and twin screws, 325
Smith’s Dock, North Shields, 351
Smith’s screw propeller, 222, 245
Société des Forges et Chantiers, Havre, 109
South African trade, 183
South America, Pacific Coast trade, 187; service with England, 191
South American States, ingratitude of, 127
South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Co.’s steamboats, 105; complain of
L.B. & S.C.R. Co., 106; first railway to order turbine steamer, 309
South Kensington Science Museum, exhibits in: Symington’s engine, 59;
model of the _Charlotte Dundas_, 61; engines of the _Comet_, 64
South of England Steam Navigation Co., 110, 111
Southampton-Channel Islands service, 110
Southampton-Havre and Honfleur service, 109, 110
Southampton-Morlaix service, 111
Southampton-St. Malo service, 113, 115
Southampton-South Pacific ports, 191
South-Western Steam Packet Co., 111, 112
Spain, steamers to, 176
Spanish-American War, sailing vessel in, 174; auxiliary cruisers, 291
Spanish Government purchase _Royal William_, 135
Spanish Navy and Chilian Revolution, 127
Speed of early steamboats, 24, 33
Stainton, Joseph, 57
Stanhope, Lord, and Fulton’s inventions, 27
State Line, 253
Steam auxiliary to sailing, development of, 164-192
Steamboat companies and railways, competition in America, 45
Steamboat, Fulton’s, impressions of, 32, 33, 34
Steam condensation, 200
Steam-engines: steam experiment of Hero of Alexandria (120 B.C.), 9;
of Giovanni Branca, 9; of the Marquis of Worcester, 9; of Blasco de
Garay, 10; of Salomon de Caus, 10; of Dr. Denis Papin, 11; of Thomas
Savery, 11; of Jonathan Hulls, 12; of Jouffroy d’Abbans, 15; of James
Rumsay, 20; of John Fitch, 21; of Robert Fulton, 31; Symington the
inventor of the marine engine, 56; his engine, 58; first horizontal
direct-acting engine, 59; Bell’s engines, 62; Robertson’s engines,
62, 64; Napier’s engines, 72; side-lever type, 72. _See also_ Engines
Steam-frigates, 315
Steam-heating of ships introduced, 157
Steam-pressures, 307
Steam-ship companies’ antagonism to railway-owned vessels, 104
Steam-ships, competition between sailers and steamers, 44; increase
from 1820, 75; British ships in 1838, 77; change of ownership and
renaming, 78; first to fire a gun in war, 135; development and
progress, 259; Lloyd’s summary quoted for size of large vessels,
291-393; repairs to ships, 300; built in halves, 301; first in
the Royal Navy, 311; eccentric designs, 375 _et seq._; future
development, 387
Steel, Messrs., of Greenock, ships built by, 134, 151, 157
Steel ships, the building of, 279-310; first steel steamer, 279;
first ocean steamer, 281;
Steel, toughened, 243
Steering-gear, steam, 109, 241
Steering screw-propelled vessels, 220
Steers, Mr. George, 158, 161
Stern-wheelers, 15
Sterns, rounded, 158
Stettin, Vulcan Shipbuilding, &c., Works at, and shipbuilding, 302;
floating dock, 353
Stevens, Col. John, constructs a steamboat, 25; and screw-propellers,
29, 192, 207-210; and stiffeners for sagging hulls, 46, 194
Stevens, Robert, 29
Stevens, Robert Livingston, 30, 44
Stevens Institute, Hoboken, original screw-engine at, 209
Stockton, Commodore Robert F., 219
Sturdee, Mr. John, 326
Submarines, Fulton’s, experiments with, 24, 26; early submarines,
375; transport of Japanese submarines, 301
Suez, Isthmus of, passage of the, 179
Suez-Bombay service of the East India Co., 180
Suez Canal, opening of, 181; mails carried via, 182; limits size of
vessels, 291
Suez route to India, 164 _et seq._
Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., 283, 365
Swan-shaped yacht, 383
Swedish State Railways ferry across the Baltic, 365
Sydney-Melbourne mail, 107
Symington, William, of Falkirk, and Fulton, 28; builds first British
steamer, 56; his engine, 58, 59
Tank steamers, 348, 351
Taylor and Davies’ engine, 313
Taylor, James, of Cumnock, 58
Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Co., 246
Tetrahedral principle of construction, 388
Thames, the, first steam-vessel to enter, 66; first built on, 69;
shipbuilding on the, 233-234
Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Co., 203, 233, 260, 322, 333, 371,
372, 377
Thames passenger steamers, overcrowding, 79; rivalry of companies,
80; ferry-steamers, 367. _See also_ London
Thames Steamboat Co., 367
Thompson’s (George, & Co.) Aberdeen Line, 296
Thomson, J. & G., 254, 281
Thorneycroft, Messrs., Thames Works, 234; jet-propelling lifeboats,
324; torpedo boats, 336
Tobin, Sir John, 145
Tod and McGregor, 237, 239, 240
Torpedo, Fulton and the, 26
Torpedo boats, 336
Towing. _See_ Tugboats
“Tramp” steamers, 343
Transasiatic railway ferry, 365
Transatlantic Co., 138
Transatlantic steam service, the beginnings of, 98, 122-148; first
steamer to cross, 122; sail with steam auxiliary, 122; first crossing
from West, 134; Canadian claims, 135; early steam voyages, 138-144
“Trent Affair, the,” 262, 277
Trevithick, Richard, and iron ships, 195
Triple-hulled boats, 388
Tsushima, Battle of, 335, 339
Tubular vessels, 235
Tugboats, 341-342; the first steam tug, 69
Turbine-driven steamers, 281, 307-309; first on the Thames, 83;
turbines of the _Dreadnought_, 335
Turret steamers, 345
Turrets, 329, 340
Twin screws. _See_ Screw
Twin steamers, 376-379
Tyne, the, iron screw steamers built on, 215; the ferries, 366
Union Co. (London-Leith), 84
Union Line founded, 182; vessels as transports, Crimean War, 183;
Brazil and South African trade, 183
Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand, 281
United States, first iron vessels for the, 193; U.S. mails and
American vessels, 153. _See also_ America, Transatlantic
Vail, Stephen, 123
Valentia, 137
Valentia Transatlantic Steam Navigation Co., 137
Valparaiso-Cobija steamers, 186
Valparaiso-Panama service, 187
Valturius’ “De Re Militari,” 4
Vanderbilt, Commodore, 173
Vickers, Sons & Maxim, 301, 369; new battleship, 340
Victoria, Queen, first steam-ship journey, 82; visit to Isle of Man,
90; royal yachts, 371
Victoria floating dock, 363
Volga, River, ferry, 364
Waddell, James Tredell, career of, 174-175
Waghorn, Thos., Bengal pilot, and Suez route to India, 166-167
Wagstaff, 162
Walliker, Mr. J. F., on engines, 306
Wallis’s yard, 82
Wallsend, floating docks built at, 357, 361, 362
Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Co., Ltd., engines by, 285
Walpole, Webb, and Bewley, Messrs., Dublin, 98
Ward, Mr. John, 194; on the evolution of the steam-ship, 228
Warships, construction of, 336; British-built for foreign Powers,
338; of the future, 340; Wooden _v._ iron, 329
Water-ballast, 212, 347
Waterford Commercial Steam Navigation Co., 74
Waterford trade, 75
Watermen and Lightermen, Worshipful Co. of, 79
Watson, Colin, 64, 65
Watt, George, 58
Watt, James, and Ogden’s engine, 219
Watt, James, the younger, and reversing machinery, 70
Watt, James, & Co., engines for _Pacific_, 205; engines for _Great
Eastern_, 276
Watt’s, James, steam-engine, 86
Wave-line theory of construction, 236, 316
Webb, William H., American shipbuilder, 47
Weir, Robert, 57
Weld, Mr. and Mrs., 68
Welland Canal, 52
West Indian fruit trade, 299
West Indies, R.M.S.P. Co.’s service, 189
Westervelt and Mackay, Messrs., 154
Weymouth and Channel Islands Steam Packet Co., 112
Weymouth-Channel Islands service, 110, 112
“Whalebacks,” 55
Wheel-boats, early, 2, 4
Wheelwright, Wm., 186
White, J. Samuel, Cowes, 336
White, Mr. Thomas, West Cowes, 111
White, Sir William H., on the _Great Eastern_, quoted, 278
White Star-Dominion Line and Canadian trade, 289
White Star Line, 241, 251-253, 287-290
Wigram and Green, Messrs., 81
Wilkinson, J., and iron barge, 195
Williams, Mr. C. W., Dublin, 72
Williamson, Capt., and turbine boat, 308
Wilson, (“Frigate Wilson”), of Liverpool, 72, 100, 144
Wilson, of London, engines by, 306
Wilson, Thomas, shipbuilder, 195
Wimshurst, Mr., Blackwall, 217
Winans’ cigar ship, 380
Wireless telegraphy, 121, 288
Wood, C., shipbuilder, 151
Wood, James, & Co., Messrs., of Port Glasgow, 81
Wood, John, & Co., of Glasgow, 62, 87, 151
Wood construction of steam-ships, 191, 193
Wooden ships, length of, 193; sagging hulls, 46, 194
Worcester, Marquis of, “Century of Inventions,” 9
Workman & Clark, Messrs., Belfast, 99
Yachts, auxiliary power in, 371; steam-yachts, 371; royal yachts,
371-374; private yachts, 374-375
Yarrow & Co., Messrs., 234, 374
Yarrow boilers, 388
Zoelly turbine, 307
Printed by BALLANTYNE & CO. LIMITED
Tavistock Street, Covent Garden, London
_Uniform with this Volume_
SAILING SHIPS
THE STORY OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
TO THE PRESENT DAY
By E. KEBLE CHATTERTON
With a Coloured Frontispiece by CHAS. DIXON, and over 130
Illustrations from Photographs, Models, &c. Extra Royal 8vo, 380
pages, in designed cover, cloth gilt, =16s.= net.
“This is a book that can be read with both pleasure and profit by any
one who takes an interest in ships and the sea, which means every
English man, woman, and child ... its author has set down all that is
and ever has been known concerning those vessels which have navigated
the ocean under sail. The text is helped out by a series of really
beautiful illustrations.... From the Seaman’s point of view the book
is above all praise, as no man can write lovingly of ships and not
deal in the technicalities of the craft of the mariner. This has been
done here with a certainty and sureness of touch which is the outcome
of an absolutely perfect knowledge of the subject, and at the same
time with such clearness and simplicity of style that the land-lubber
can read and understand.... There is no unnecessary wealth of detail
in this book, but at the same time no important facts are slurred
over, no important change in build or rig is ever missed. It is this
that makes of it such eminently satisfactory reading.... A work of
such special and remarkable value that it is certain to survive as a
classic on this particular subject.”--_Pall Mall Gazette._
“It is the full and complete history of the Sailing Ship from early
Egyptian times to the present, written, not by a “dry-as-dust”
or a book-worm, but by a man who is passionately devoted to the
sea.... The volume, as might only be expected of the publishers,
is beautifully printed, and is filled with excellent illustrations
showing every shape of the development of sailing ships. It is
impossible to do justice to Mr. Chatterton’s book within a small
space.... There is nothing left to be desired in the matter of plans,
pictures, or index, and we can only offer our hearty congratulations
to the author on a very fine piece of work.”--_The World._
“It is not only a book that the average British boy will gloat over
and revel in to his heart’s content, but it is even one that his
elders will find abundant interest in--sufficient to chain their
attention once they essay to dip into its pages. The book itself is
made beautiful with a hundred and thirty illustrations, while it
is not often that one comes across a work got up in such excellent
style, or that does such real credit to its publishers.”--_United
Service Gazette._
“Mr. Chatterton has the right temper and inclinations for writing a
book of this sort.... He has a practical knowledge of sailing, and
an evident passion for what Stevenson called “the richest kind of
idling”--hanging about harbours and docks and picking up sea-lore
from communicative “shellbacks.” Besides this, he is a scholar in
naval learning.... The illustrations in the book are excellent ...
this book should be in every naval library.”--_Spectator._
“We need only say that the whole book is as interesting as a romance,
and as informing as an encyclopædia, while not a single page can be
called dull or dry. The numerous illustrations are excellent and
appropriate, and the whole book deserves the highest praise and
commendation.”--_Bookseller._
“A monument of research.”--_Daily Mail._
“Interesting and instructive ... both timely and welcome.”--_Times._
“Admirable ... his criticisms are always those of the seaman as well
as of the expert.”--_Westminster Gazette._
“Beautifully printed and copiously illustrated. ‘Sailing Ships and
their Story’ will be found most interesting and instructive to every
lover of the sea.... The work is one that should be found in the
library of every yachtsman.”--_Yachting World._
“Must be considered ... a standard work.”--_Yachting Monthly._
“Mr. Keble Chatterton’s final chapter on the development of the fore
and aft rig will be of special interest to yachtsmen.”--_Daily News._
“This is a heartfelt book ... it will long hold first place as an
authoritative work.”--_Nation_ (New York).
“A work full of fascination, and abounding with accurate
information.”--_The Field._
“It is just the sort of book to have for handy reference on board the
yacht when one sits on deck in the gloaming of the second dog-watch
smoking a pipe and arguing with a nautical friend. It is a book, too,
for the marine artist, its one hundred and thirty illustrations being
technically correct.”--_The Dial_ (Chicago).
“Mr. Chatterton has produced a valuable book.”--_Daily Chronicle._
“Altogether it is the most absorbing historical work of its kind I
have ever read.”--_Collier’s Weekly_.
“... Likely to be recognised as a standard work on the
subject....”--_Court Journal._
“There isn’t one ‘dry’ or uninteresting page in the whole
treatise.”--_Maritime Review._
“A work that will prove a veritable classic of the sea, and make of
him the standard historian of the sailing ship.”--_Nautical Magazine._
“To compress the history of the development of the sailing vessel
from the rude dug-out of prehistoric Nile explorers to the iron
clippers of to-day into some three hundred pages is a feat of which
Mr. Chatterton may well be proud.”--_Naval and Military Record._
SIDGWICK & JACKSON, LTD.
3 ADAM STREET, ADELPHI, LONDON, W.C.
Transcriber’s Notes
Inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, formatting, etc. have been
retained, except as mentioned below. French and German accents have
not been changed or added unless listed below. The inconsistent and
unusual use of units (knots for both distance and speed, yards for
both length and area, etc.) is as in the source document.
List of Illustrations: numbers 128 (Cartagena Dock) and 129
(_Baikal_) are in reverse order in the list compared to the text.
This has not been rectified so as to not mix up the photo credits.
Some other discrepancies between the list and the captions have been
rectified, as mentioned below.
Page 147, table: the contradicting units (feet, inches) are as
printed in the source document.
Page 229, ... the ‘three grand requirements (of marine engines): the
closing quote mark is lacking.
Page 361 (and Index), ... the powerful Dutch tugs Roodezee and
Zwartezee ...: they were called the Roode Zee and the Zwarte Zee.
Changes made
Footnotes and illustrations have been moved out of text paragraphs;
some ditto signs have been replaced with the dittoed text. Page
references under illustration giving the page number opposite which
the illustration was printed have been deleted.
Some obvious minor typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected silently.
List of Illustrations: illustration numbers have been added.
Illustrations numbers 33 (originally _Kingfisher_) and 34 (originally
_Carron_) interchanged cf. the order of the illustrations in the
text; ditto for numbers 44 (_Cambria_) and 45 (_Marylebone_), numbers
51 (_Dieppe_) and 52 (_United Kingdom_), and numbers 94 (_Campania_)
and 95 (_Mauretania_).
Perier and Périer have been standardised to Périer.
Page 65: ... to bring up in Ramsay Bay ... has been changed to ... to
bring up in Ramsey Bay ....
Page 86: ſatisfying has been changed to ſatiſfying.
Page 118: Konisberg has been changed to Königsberg.
Page 187: Miller and Ravenhall has been changed to Miller and
Ravenhill.
Page 320: Dupuy de Lome has been changed to Dupuy de Lôme.
Index entries changed to conform to the text: Belier to Bélier;
Bernouilli to Bernoulli; Browne, Charles to Brownne, Charles; Cambia
(Cunard Co.) and Cambia (L. & N.W.R.) to Cambria (Cunard Co.) and
Cambria (L. & N.W.R.) (ships); Chipping Camden to Chipping Campden
(entry Freeman, Mr.); Dupuy de Lome to Dupuy de Lôme; Fire-brand to
Firebrand (ship); Grayson & Leadly to Grayson & Leadley; Humbolt to
Humboldt (ship); Jorden, J., & Co. to Jordan, J., & Co.; Jouffrey
d’Abbans to Jouffroy d’Abbans; Jumma to Jumna (ship); Liffy to Liffey
(ship); Maudsley, Sons & Field to Maudslay, Sons & Field; Morisot’s
“Orbis Maritimi,” to Morisotus’ “Orbis Maritimi,”; Munroe, President
to Monroe, President (also moved to proper place); Prince Regent
Luitpold to Prinz Regent Luitpold (ship); Rubic and Blaker to Rubie
and Blaker; James Rumsey to James Rumsay (entry Moray, John); Salamon
de Caus to Salomon de Caus (entry Steam-engines); Sans Pariel to Sans
Pareil (ship); Shaw, Savil & Albion Co. to Shaw, Savill & Albion Co.;
Winan’s cigar ship to Winans’ cigar ship.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STEAM-SHIPS ***
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.
