Steam-ships

by R. A. Fletcher

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.

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.