Modern shipbuilding and the men engaged in it

by David Pollock

The supremacy of one shipbuilding centre over another in the matter of work accomplished, both with regard to its character and its quantity, not infrequently forms the subject of comment in the columns of journals circulating in the districts concerned. The publication, by these journals, at the close of each year, of the returns of new tonnage produced by the various firms, affords an opportunity for vaunting on such matters, and it is, as a rule, taken advantage of by the compilers of the statements, who are usually members of the staff on the journals in question. These statements, through the interesting nature of the statistics they contain, are widely read, and the labour attaching to their preparation must indeed be considerable. The figures are, as a rule, supplied by the shipbuilders themselves, and from a summation of these the compiler draws his conclusions. The accuracy of the returns and the fairness of the comments based upon them, if not always completely satisfactory, are thus seen to be matters for which the compiler is not wholly responsible.

Frequent exception has been taken by correspondents to discrepancies in the tonnages of individual vessels given in these reports, as compared with the tonnages measured by the Board of Trade officials, and entered in their records. Attention was called to this matter at the close of 1883 by a correspondent in Engineering, whose assertions were afterwards corroborated in other journals. From a careful checking of the returns made by the Glasgow press of the shipbuilding on the Clyde for the three previous years this correspondent maintained that the aggregate tonnage was overstated to the extent of about 11,000 per year, or over 34,100 tons for the period named. One very gross instance of the misstatement complained of was given by a second correspondent writing to the Glasgow Herald, who drew attention, along with the returns of other firms, to that of a firm building the smaller class of vessels, who were stated in the Herald’s account to have produced 8,300 tons, when by a careful comparison with the actual tonnages of the vessels as recorded in Lloyd’s Register, their total output was found to fall short of the figure given by as much as 2,172 tons, equivalent to 35 per cent. of the actual output. In commenting on these discrepancies several obvious considerations suggested themselves to the critics: such as possible misapprehension, caused by the existence of several kinds of “tonnages,” and the difficulty of stating accurately the tonnages of vessels recently launched. It was questioned, however, after all such allowances were made, whether those furnishing the figures could be exonerated from the sin of carelessness, or indeed, of pure falsification with the view of figuring prominently in the list. The accuracy of these criticisms has not in any way been disproved, nor has any satisfactory explanation been offered.

While no attempt will here be made to solve the matter, it has been felt that, in justice to the subject, these charges could not be ignored when presenting statistics which are derived mainly from the sources thus challenged. Indeed, in comparing for the present work the statistics given by various journals—even in journals confined to the same district—innumerable disparities have been met with, and the agreement has only been en grosse. Such being the case, it may be asked, could not other and more reliable sources be consulted? The obvious alternative of using the authoritative returns of the Board of Trade, or of Lloyd’s Register, at once suggests itself, but objections to this are even more serious than to using the press statistics. The returns issued annually by the Board of Trade only relate to “Merchant Shipping” registered as such, whereas it is well known that in the returns furnished by the shipbuilders all sorts of vessels built by them are included, and that a very considerable tonnage in war vessels and small vessels for military purposes, also in light-draught river craft, both for our own and other countries, is annually turned out from merchant shipyards. The same objections apply to Lloyd’s Register Summary, although, strangely enough, the figures there more nearly correspond with the builders’ than with the Board of Trade returns, the information given in both cases being the gross tonnage of merchant shipping built and registered in the United Kingdom. Everything considered, the statistics compiled from press returns more accurately represent the work accomplished throughout the districts than those afforded by any of the sources named. In the statistics which follow, therefore, the press returns have been adopted, but to simplify matters for purposes of comparison—the degree of unreliability warranting it—the terminal figures in large quantities have been reduced or increased to hundredths, according as they have chanced to be under or above fifty.

The fluctuation from year to year in the shipbuilding industry of the principal districts over an extended period is exhibited in an interesting manner by the diagram facing page 188, consisting of curves set up on equidistant ordinates representing years, to the scale shown on the right of the diagram. The figures from which the curves have been constructed will be found to the left of the diagram.[32]

It is matter of considerable regret to the author that his utmost efforts to obtain statistics for the Tyne over a period corresponding to that for which the Clyde figures are available have not been rewarded with success. Many likely sources have been consulted, and several gentlemen connected with the river and its industries have been appealed to, but without any satisfactory result. No systematic record of shipbuilding output has been kept by anyone officially concerned with the river, although in every other respect its progress has been abundantly and accurately chronicled. It is only so recently as 1878 that the Newcastle Chronicle begun the practice of giving, in the systematic and complete manner for which it is now justly noted, the returns of shipbuilding throughout the Kingdom. To this journal the author is indebted for the figures of work done on the Tyne during the years subsequent to 1878. The figures for the Wear have been taken from an article descriptive of that district appearing in the Shipping World for June of the present year.

With regard to the Clyde, it is interesting to observe how in the curve the periods of greatest activity, and consequent output, are recurrent every tenth year. Thus at 1864, 1874, and, at all events, 1883, the curve forms decided crests as compared with the general undulations over the intervening years.

During the seven years from 1846 to 1852 inclusive the number of steam vessels built on the Clyde amounted to 14 with wood hulls, 233 with iron hulls—total, 247, of which 141 were paddle-steamers and 106 screw-steamers. The tonnage of the wooden steamers amounted to 18,330, and of the iron vessels to 129,270 tons; the horse-power of the engines in the wooden hulls being 6,740, and in the iron hulls 31,590. In 1851, or nearly a decade earlier than the year at which the curve begins, the number of ships produced was 41, with an aggregate tonnage of 25,320. In 1861, a decade later, 81 steamers were built, the tonnage of which amounted to 60,185, and the horse-power of the engines, 12,493. The tonnage for both steamers and ships, however, during that year was 66,800, as shown by the diagram. During the seven years immediately prior to 1862 the extent and progress of shipbuilding on the river were such that 636 vessels, having an aggregate tonnage of 377,000 tons, were launched from the yards of Glasgow, Greenock, and Dumbarton.

TONNAGE DIAGRAM.