OCEAN STEAMSHIPS

A DRAMA OF THE SEA.

[Larger image] (208 kB)

OCEAN STEAMSHIPS
A POPULAR ACCOUNT OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION
DEVELOPMENT, MANAGEMENT
AND APPLIANCES

BY
F. E. CHADWICK, U. S. N.
J. D. J. KELLEY, U. S. N.
RIDGELY HUNT, U. S. N.
JOHN H. GOULD
WILLIAM H. RIDEING
A. E. SEATON
WITH NINETY-SIX ILLUSTRATIONS
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1891

Copyright, 1891, by
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS

TROW DIRECTORY
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY
NEW YORK

CONTENTS.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STEAMSHIP.
By COMMANDER F. E. CHADWICK, U. S. NAVY.

Slow Growth of the Idea of Steam Propulsion—Models Shown at the Liverpool Exhibition in 1886—Claims of Precedence in the Invention of Steamboats—What Fulton Accomplished—The Clermont—The Voyage of the Savannah in 1819—The First War Steamer—The Atlantic Crossed by the Sirius and Great Western in 1838—Founding of the Cunard Company—Invention of the Screw Propeller—Its Application to the Archimedes and the Great Britain—Early Fleet of the Cunard Company—American Enterprises—The Screw Steamer Princeton—Establishment of the Pacific Mail—The Collins Line—Its Success and Ultimate Failure—The Great Eastern—Beginning of Great Rivalry in Speed—Triple Expansion Engines—Important Changes in Design.

IT is a wonderful fact in the swift expansion of mechanical knowledge and appliances of the last hundred years that while for unknown ages the wind was the only propelling force used for purposes of navigation, apart from the rude application of power through oars worked by men, the whole scheme of steam transport has grown, practically, to its present wonderful perfection within the lifetime of men yet living.

Of course, the idea, as is that of all great inventions, was one of slow growth. It cropped up at various stages through the eighteenth century, and there are faint evidences of gropings in this direction in the latter part of the seventeenth; but these latter were not much more definite than the embodiment of the idea of the telegraph in Puck’s girdle round the earth, and the evidence that men really thought of propelling boats by steam is very meagre until we come to the pamphlet written by Jonathan Hulls, in 1737, in which he gave utterance to a very clear and distinct idea in the matter. It struggled through a very backward infancy of fifty years and more, certain memorable names appearing now and then to help it along, as that of Watt (without whose improvements in the steam-engine it must still have remained in swaddling-clothes), Fitch, De Jouffroy, Rumsey, Symington, and finally Fulton, who, however much he may have learned from his predecessors, has unquestionably the credit of putting afloat the first commercially successful steamboat. He is thus worthy of all the honor accorded him; much of it came too late, as he died at the comparatively early age of fifty, after passing through the harassments which seem naturally to lie in the path of the innovator.

A graphic history of the wonderful changes wrought in this great factor of the world’s progress was set forth during the summer of 1886, at the International Exhibition at Liverpool, where, by model and drawing, the various steps were made more completely visible and tangible than, perhaps, ever before. True, the relics of the earlier phases of the steamship age, when its believers were but few and generally of small account, were sparse, but the exhibits of later models, from the date of the inception of transatlantic traffic, preparations for which were begun in earnest by laying down the steamship Great Western in 1836, were frequent enough, and the whole of the steps in the development of the means of ocean traffic from then till now were sufficiently well shown.

The exhibition, of course, did not confine itself to the steam era alone. It even had a model of an Egyptian vessel, which was exhibited by the Liverpool Library Society, as taken from Thebes, and estimated to date about 1,500 years B.C., and which Moses himself might thus have seen. It was a long stretch, however, to the next in date, as no others antedated 1700 A.D. There were many of the handsome and dignified eighteenth-century men-of-war, built at a time when men began to preserve a record of their work in the miniature ships which are now esteemed an essential addition to almost every vessel of importance put afloat. Firms now exist whose only business it is to make the various minute fittings—the ports, chains, anchors, blocks, etc.—of the Liliputian craft, so that every detail of the original is given with an exact verisimilitude in very often most beautiful and elaborate work.

It would have been very interesting had the early struggles of the steamboat been thus illustrated in extenso, but there is nothing of its concrete history earlier than a small model of the original Comet, built by Henry Bell, at Glasgow, in 1812, and so named because of the extraordinary comet of that year, and the engines of her successor, built in 1820. These recall, however, the vessel which was the first steamer engaged in passenger traffic in Europe, and are thus worthy of honor.

In looking over the beautiful array of models then exhibited, which thus represented almost every stage of progress in British steamship building, from the Comet onward, one could not help regretting that an effort had not been made by our government to bring together models, of which there must have been some, at least, available, illustrative of our earlier practice, particularly as there is much in it peculiar to us, and which would have been most interesting to the great public which visited the exhibition. Models of the Clermont; of the Stevens experimental screw boat; a later Mississippi steamer; the Savannah—the first vessel using steam which ever crossed the Atlantic; the Washington, the pioneer of regular transatlantic steam traffic under our flag; the Adriatic; the Hudson River and great Sound steamers of to-day, would, apart from any war-ship models of interest which could have been sent, have made a most interesting and attractive collection. The only things, however, which were visible were the drawings of a New York ferry-boat (the type of which, by the way, we owe to Fulton), so placed as to be scarcely discoverable. These boats are so typical, so different from anything found in Europe, and so interesting to any student of steam ferriage as a thorough adaptation of means to an end, that a complete model of the boat and its ferry slip would have been a most satisfactory addition.

It must be remembered that the steamboat had in its earlier days a much greater extension in America than elsewhere. Our great rivers were an especially attractive field for its use. The Mississippi had but lately come under our control, and the beginning of the great tide of Western emigration and exploration was almost coincident with the steamboat’s advent, so that through these favoring conditions it had a much more rapid growth among us than elsewhere.

The display, however, of British models was as complete as it could well be made. Private owners and builders, the Admiralty, and Lloyds’ Registry, united to make the collection a very complete and perfect one. Of continental European exhibits, that of the Italian Government, which sent a very splendid collection of models of its great war-ships, was the most important. Associated with it was the exhibit of the Fratelli Orlando of Leghorn, who have done much of both the public and private building of Italy. The only French exhibit was that of the Bureau Veritas, which followed the example of its English rival, Lloyds, in making a very striking and instructive show.

The only exhibits of modern war-ships were those of England and Italy, unless we except the numerous vessels built for foreign powers by English builders. The remainder of the display was chiefly connected with the strife of commerce, and in this it is likely to remain as complete and comprehensive as can be made in some time to come. It was one also in which Britain might well take pride, as, however great the United States were as pioneers or as more than equals in the beginning of the race, we have long since been distanced by our kinsmen, and we must refer, for some years at least, to Great Britain to study the principal changes in hull and machinery of the last half-century, though the great strides of the last six years, accomplished through our war-ship construction, bid fair to once more put us in our old and honorable place.

The Liverpool exhibition was the forerunner of a number of others of like character, which have culminated in the “Naval Exhibition” of 1891 in London, which, however, is more concerned with war than was its predecessor, and does not enter so fully into the details of early practice.

It is useless to draw comparisons between the value of claims of precedence in the history of steam navigation. The fact that Fulton’s efforts finally started the world to building steamboats for actual service is indisputable. All preceding cases were simply sporadic, and had none of the contagious power possessed by the experiments on the Hudson. Fulton himself had already built six steamboats before one was built elsewhere than in America. His boats, from the beginning, were of practical value, and not small experiments, the Clermont herself being 136 feet long, 18 feet broad, 7 feet deep, of 160 tons; and the diameter of her wheels was 15 feet.

In 1809 the first steamboat, the Accommodation, was seen on the St. Lawrence, and in 1811 the first (built at Pittsburgh) appeared on the Mississippi. A year after this the Comet, already alluded to, was put upon the Clyde by Henry Bell. She was only 40 feet long on the keel, and 10¹⁄₂ broad, with two small paddle-wheels on each side, driven by a gearing which geared into a wheel on the axle of each set of paddle-wheels. Her original engines are still in existence, and are deposited in the Museum at South Kensington, where they were set up by the same engineer (Mr. John Robertson) who placed them in the Comet.

Fulton also has the honor of being the first to design and build a war steamer, which for her time was a most remarkable production, and by far the largest steam vessel built before 1838. She was a fitting monument to the genius of the man who unfortunately did not live to see her completion and successful trials.

The Demologos, or Fulton the First, was laid down June 20, 1814, and launched October 29th of the same year. “Her dimensions were: length, 150 feet; breadth, 56 feet; depth, 20 feet; water-wheel, 16 feet diameter, length of bucket 14 feet, dip 4 feet; engine, 48-inch cylinder, 5 feet stroke; boiler length 22 feet, breadth 12 feet, and depth 8 feet; tonnage, 2,475.”

The commissioners appointed to examine her say in their report:

“She is a structure resting upon two boats, keels separated from end to end by a canal 15 feet wide and 66 feet long. One boat contains the caldrons of copper to prepare her steam. The vast cylinder of iron, with its piston, levers, and wheels, occupies a part of its fellow: the great water-wheel revolves in the space between them: the main or gun deck supporting her armament is protected by a bulwark four feet ten inches thick of solid timber. This is pierced by 30 port-holes, to enable as many 32-pounders to fire red-hot balls.

… She is rigged with 2 short masts, each of which supports a large lateen yard and sails. She has 2 bowsprits and jibs, and 4 rudders, 2 at each extremity of the boat, so that she can be steered with either end foremost. Her machinery is calculated for the addition of an engine which will discharge an immense column of water, which is intended to throw upon the decks and through the ports of an enemy.” She was also intended to carry four 100-pounders.

She made her first trial on June 1, 1815, and on the Fourth of July she steamed outside of Sandy Hook and back, a distance of 53 miles, in 8 hours and 20 minutes. She was then supposably light, as it is stated that she was again tried September 11, 1815, with 26 of her guns on board, and ammunition and stores to bring her down to nearly 11 feet draught. She steamed from 4¹⁄₂ to 5 miles an hour, Fulton having only promised 3, and may certainly be considered to have been a success. She was never commissioned, but was used as a receiving ship at New York until June 4, 1829, when she accidentally blew up.

The general slowness with which men in the early part of the century received the idea of the mighty changes impending may be recognized when we look over the few publications connected with navigation then published. Mind seemed to move more slowly in those days; communication was tedious and difficult. Edinburgh was as far from London in length of time taken for the journey as is now New York from New Orleans; few papers were published; there were no scientific journals of value; no great associations of men given to meeting and discussing scientific questions excepting the few ponderous societies which dealt more in abstract questions than in the daily advances of the mechanical world. It was thus that the steam vessel came slowly to the front, and that it took more than a third of the whole time which has elapsed since Fulton’s successful effort to convince men that it might be possible to carry on traffic by steam across the Atlantic. Dr. Lardner is almost chiefly remembered by his famous unwillingness to grant the possibility of steaming directly from Liverpool to New York; and by his remark, “As to the project, however, which was announced in the newspapers, of making the voyage directly from New York to Liverpool, it was, he had no hesitation in saying, perfectly chimerical, and that they might as well talk of making a voyage from New York or Liverpool to the moon.”[1] He strongly urged dividing the transit by using Ireland as one of the intermediate steps, and going thence to Newfoundland. He curiously limited the size of ships which might be used, and their coal-carrying powers. Though a philosopher, he did not seem to grasp that if the steamship had grown to what it was in 1835 from the small beginnings of 1807 it might grow even more, and its machinery be subject to development in later times as it had been in the earlier. Lardner seems to have typified the general state of mind when in 1836 the Great Western Steamship Company was formed, from which really dates transatlantic traffic.

A slight retrospect is necessary to enable us to understand the status of steam at the time. Little really had been done beyond the establishment of coast, river, and lake navigation in the United States and coastwise traffic in Great Britain; a few small vessels had been built for the British navy. In 1825 the Enterprise (122 feet length of keel and 27 feet beam) had gone to Calcutta from London in 113 days, 10 of which had been spent in stoppages; and steam mail communication with India was about being definitely established when the keel of the Great Western was laid.

Up to this time America had undergone much the greater development, both in number of steam vessels and tonnage.

In 1829 our enrolled tonnage was 54,037 tons, or rather more than twice that of the United Kingdom. Charleston and Savannah had regular steam communication with our northern ports. A few years later, in 1838, returns show that the former had 14 steamers, the largest being of 466 tons; Philadelphia had 11, the largest being of 563 tons; New York had 77, of which 39 were of a large class, exceeding generally 300 tons—the largest was the President, of 615 tons, built in 1829. Liverpool had at this date 41 steamers; the largest was of 559 tons, 4 others exceeded 200 tons, and all the others were much smaller. London had 169, of which the largest was the British Queen, just built, of 1,053 tons; the next largest was of 497 tons. Glasgow and Belfast had been in regular steam communication since 1818; Glasgow and Liverpool, London and Leith, since 1822. The first ferry-boat on the Mersey, it may be noted, the Etna, 63 feet long, with a paddle-wheel in the centre, began her trips in 1816.

In 1819 the Atlantic was first crossed by a ship using steam. This was the Savannah, of 380 tons, launched at Corlear’s Hook, New York, August 22, 1818.[2]

She was built to ply between New York and Savannah as a sailing-packet. She was, however, purchased by Savannah merchants and fitted with steam machinery, the paddle-wheels being constructed to fold up and be laid upon the deck when not in use, her shaft also having a joint for that purpose. She left Savannah on the 26th of May, and reached Liverpool in 25 days, using steam 18 days. The log-book, still preserved, notes several times taking the wheels in on deck in thirty minutes.

In August she left Liverpool for Cronstadt. An effort was made to sell her to Russia, which failed. She sailed for Savannah, touching at Copenhagen and Arendal, and arrived in 53 days. Her machinery later was taken out, and she resumed her original character as a sailing-packet, and ended her days by being wrecked on the south coast of Long Island.

But steam-power had by 1830 grown large enough to strike out more boldly. The Savannah’s effort was an attempt in which steam was only an auxiliary, and one, too, of a not very powerful kind. Our coastwise steamers, as well as those employed in Great Britain, as also the voyage of the Enterprise to Calcutta in 1825 (though she took 113 days in doing it), had settled the possibility of the use of steam at sea, and the question had now become whether a ship could be built to cross the Atlantic depending entirely on her steam power. It had become wholly a question of fuel consumption. The Savannah, it may be said, used pitch-pine on her outward voyage, and wood was for a very long time the chief fuel for steaming purposes in America. How very important this question was will be understood when it is known that Mr. McGregor Laird, the founder of the Birkenhead firm, in 1834, laid before the Committee of the House of Commons on Steam Navigation to India the following estimate of coal consumption:

Or more than four times what is consumed to-day in moderately economical ships. In other words, to steam at her present rate across the Atlantic the City of New York, of 18,000 horse-power, would need to start with something like 7,500 tons of coal on board were her consumption per indicated horse-power equal to that of the best sea practice of that date, which could hardly have been under 6 pounds per indicated horse-power per hour.

This may be said to have been the status of affairs when, in 1836, under the influence of Brunei’s bold genius, the Great Western Steamship Company was founded as an off-shoot of the Great Western Railway, whose terminus was then Bristol. Brunel wished to know why the line should not extend itself to New York, and the result of his suggestion was the formation of the steamship company and the laying down at Bristol of their first ship, the Great Western.

Brunel’s large ideas were shown in this ship, though in comparatively a less degree, as well as in his later ones. She was of unprecedented size, determined on by Brunel as being necessary for the requisite power and coal-carrying capacity. The following were her principal dimensions: Length over all, 236 ft.; length between perpendiculars, 212 ft.; length of keel, 205 ft.; breadth, 35 ft. 4 in.; depth of hold, 23 ft. 2 in.; draught of water, 16 ft. 8 in.; length of engine-room, 72 ft.; tonnage by measurement, 1,340 tons; displacement at load-draught, 2,300 tons.

The Great Western, from an old painting.

[Larger image] (136 kB)

Dimensions of engines: Diameter of cylinders, 73¹⁄₂ in.; length of stroke, 7 ft.; weight of engines, wheels, etc., 310 tons; number of boilers, 4; weight of boilers, 90 tons; weight of water in boilers, 80 tons; diameter of wheel, 28 ft. 9 in.; width of floats, 10 ft.

Her engines (side-lever) were built by the great firm of Maudslay & Field, who had been for some time one of the most notable marine-engine building firms of the period in Great Britain. They had, up to 1836, built 66 engines for steamers; the first being in 1815, when they built those of the Richmond, of 17 horse-power. The indicated power of the Great Western was 750; and a notable measure of the stride which steam has taken in the half-century since they undertook this contract is that they have since constructed twin-screw engines from which they have guaranteed to produce 19,500 horse-power. These drive a great armor-clad, which has six times the displacement of the Great Western and twice her ordinary speed.

The Great Western was launched on July 19, 1837, and was towed from Bristol to the Thames to receive her machinery, where she was the wonder of London. She left for Bristol on March 31, 1838; and arrived, after having had a serious fire on board, on April 2d.

In the meantime others had been struck with the possibility of steaming to New York; and a company, of which the moving spirit was Mr. J. Laird, of Birkenhead, purchased the Sirius, of 700 tons, employed between London and Cork, and prepared her for a voyage to New York. The completion of the Great Western was consequently hastened; and she left Bristol on Sunday, April 8, 1838, at 10 A.M. with 7 passengers on board, and reached New York on Monday, the 23d, the afternoon of the same day with the Sirius, which had left Cork Harbor (where she had touched en route from London) four days before the Great Western had left Bristol. The latter still had nearly 200 tons of coal, of the total of 800, on board on arrival; the Sirius had consumed her whole supply, and was barely able to make harbor.

Cross-section of the Great Western.

It is needless to speak of the reception of these two ships at New York. It was an event which stirred the whole country, and with reason; it had practically, at one stroke, reduced the breadth of the Atlantic by half, and brought the Old and New World by so much the nearer together. The Great Western started on her return voyage, May 7th, with 66 passengers. This was made in 14 days, though one was lost by a stoppage at sea. Her average daily run out was 202 miles, or about 8¹⁄₂ knots per hour; in returning she made an average of close upon 9. Her coal consumption to New York was 655 tons, though in returning it was 392 tons—due no doubt to the aid from the westerly winds which generally prevail in the North Atlantic in the higher latitudes. She made in all, between 1838 and 1843, 64 voyages across the Atlantic, her average time from Bristol or Liverpool to New York, with an average distance of 3,062¹⁄₂ knots, being 15 days 12 hours, and from New York eastward, over an average distance of 3,105 knots, 13 days 6 hours. Her fastest westward passage was in 12 days 18 hours; her longest in 22 days 6 hours. Her fastest eastward was in 12 days 7¹⁄₂ hours; and longest, in 15 days. The largest number of passengers carried was 152, and she averaged throughout 85. In 1847 she was sold to the West India Steam Packet Company, and in 1857, about the time that Mr. Brunel was launching his last and greatest ship, she was broken up at Vauxhall; and her final province no doubt was to feed the drawing-room fires of the West End of London, a fate to which many a worn-out wayfarer of the seas is yearly devoted.

The Great Britain.

[Larger image] (142 kB)

Steam communication between England and America had thus been demonstrated as possible beyond a doubt, and others were not slow to make the venture. The Great Western Company themselves determined to lay down a second ship; and it having been quickly seen that the mails must be henceforth carried by steam, a gentleman from Halifax, Nova Scotia, appeared upon the scene, who was destined to connect his name indelibly with the history of steam upon the Atlantic. This was Mr. Samuel Cunard, who had nursed the idea of such a steam line for some years, and who now, with Mr. George Burns, of Glasgow, and Mr. David McIver, of Liverpool, founded the great company known by Mr. Cunard’s name. The establishment of this line and the building of the Great Britain by the Great Western Company are two most notable events in steam navigation the one putting the steam traffic between the two countries on a firm and secure basis; the other marking a notable step in the revolution in construction and means of applying the propelling power, destined before many years to be completely accepted to the exclusion of the wooden hull and the paddle-wheel. It is not fair to speak of the use of iron in the Great Britain for the hull, in a general way, as the beginning of the change; she was only the first large ship to be built of this material. The credit of the introduction of iron is largely to be awarded to Mr. John Laird, of Birkenhead, who in 1829 built a lighter 60 feet long, 13 feet 4 inches in breadth, and 6 feet depth of hold; and in 1833, a paddle-wheel steamer, the Lady Lansdowne, of 148 tons, 133 feet long, 17 feet broad and 9 feet 6 inches deep. “In the following year Mr. Laird constructed a second paddle-steamer, for G. B. Lamar, Esq., of Savannah, United States, called the John Randolph. This was the first iron vessel ever seen in American waters. She was shipped in pieces at Liverpool, and riveted together in the Savannah River, where for several years afterward she was used as a tug-boat.” Though Mr. Laird was the ablest upholder of iron as a material for ship-building, and was the largest builder in it, the idea existed before him—Richard Trevithick and Robert Stevenson so early as 1809 proposing iron vessels, “and even suggested ‘masts, yards, and spars to be constructed in plates, with telescope-joints or screwed together; and in 1815 Mr. Dickenson patented an invention for vessels, or rather boats, to be built of iron, with a hollow water-tight gunwale” (Lindsay, vol. iv., p. 85). But nothing came of these proposals, and the first iron vessel mentioned was built in 1818 by Thomas Wilson, near Glasgow—the first steam vessel being the Aaron Manby, “constructed in 1821 at Horsley” (Lindsay). “Up to 1834, Mr. Laird had constructed six iron vessels altogether;” the largest of these was the Garryowen, of 300 tons, for the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. Others of considerable size by the same builder followed, and the material began to come into use elsewhere. In 1837 the Rainbow, of 600 tons, by far the largest iron steamer which had yet been built, was laid down at Birkenhead. It will thus be seen how bold was the step taken by Mr. Brunel when, in 1838, he advised the Great Western Company to use iron as the material for their new ship, which was to be of the startling size of 3,443 tons displacement. Nor were his innovations to stop with size and material. On his earnest recommendation to the company it was decided, in 1839, to change from the first design of the usual paddle-wheels to a screw.

Ericsson’s First Arrangement of Underwater Propeller (Oct. 10, 1834).

Ericsson’s Propeller (July 13, 1836).

Smith’s Amended Specification
(May 18, 1839).

Smith’s Specification (May 31, 1836).

Cammerow’s Specification (Dec. 10, 1828).
Specifications of Early Patents taken out in England.

Three years before (in 1836), a Swede, whose name was destined to become much more famous in our own land, had successfully shown the practicability of screw propulsion, in the Francis B. Ogden, on the Thames. “She was 45 feet long and 8 feet wide, drawing 2 feet 3 inches of water. In this vessel he fitted his engine and two propellers, each of 5 feet 3 inches diameter” (Lindsay). She made ten miles an hour, and showed her capabilities by towing a large packetship at good speed. There was no question of the success of this little vessel, which was witnessed on one occasion by several of the lords of the admiralty. Notwithstanding her unqualified success, Ericsson had no support in England. It happened, however, that Commodore Stockton, of our navy, was then in London; and witnessing a trial of the Ogden, ordered two small boats of him. One, the Robert F. Stockton, was built, in 1838, of iron, by Laird—63 feet 5 inches in length, 10 feet in breadth, and 7 feet in depth. She was taken—April, 1839—under sail, to the United States by a crew of a master and four men. This little vessel was the forerunner of the famous Princeton, built after the designs of Ericsson, who had been induced by Commodore Stockton to come to America as offering a more kindly field for his talents.

In the same year with Ericsson’s trial of the Ogden, Mr. Thomas Pettit Smith took out a patent for a screw; and it was by the company formed by Smith that the screw propeller was first tried on a large scale, in the Archimedes, of 237 tons, in 1839. Of course the names mentioned by no means exhaust the list of claimants to this great invention. Nor can it be said to have been invented by either of these two, but they were the first to score decisive successes and convince the world of its practicability.

In 1770, Watt wrote to Dr. Smalls (who, a Scot, was at one time a professor at William and Mary College, in Virginia, but returned to England in 1785) regarding the latter’s experiments in relation to canal navigation, asking him, “Have you ever considered a spiral oar for that purpose, or are you for two wheels?” In the letter is the sketch, a fac-simile of which is here shown:

Dr. Smalls answers that, “I have tried models of spiral oars, and have found them all inferior to oars of either of the other forms” (Muirhead’s “Life of Watt,” p. 203).

Joseph Bramah, in 1785, took out a patent for propelling vessels by steam, wherein, after describing the method figured in his specification of using a wheel at the stern of a vessel, in which he places the rudder at the bow, he proceeds as follows:

“Instead of this wheel A may be introduced a wheel with inclined fans, or wings, similar to the fly of a smoke-jack, or the vertical sails of a wind-mill. This wheel, or fly, may be fixed on the spindle C alone, and may be wholly under water, when it would, by being turned round either way, cause the ship to be forced backward or forward, as the inclination of the fans, or wings, will act as oars with equal force both ways; and their power will be in proportion to the size and velocity of the wheel, allowing the fans to have a proper inclination. The steam-engine will also serve to clear the ship of water with singular expedition, which is a circumstance of much consequence.”

Bramah thus very clearly describes the screw, and in so doing must unquestionably be numbered as one of the many fathers of this system of propulsion. Fitch, as before stated, is recorded, on most trustworthy evidence, to have been another: and Mr. Stevens, of Hoboken, not only carried out successful experiments with the screw in 1804, at New York, but even experimented with twin screws. Charles Cummerow, “in the City of London, merchant,” patented, in 1828, “certain improvements in propelling vessels, communicated to me by a certain foreigner residing abroad,” in which the screw is set forth in a manner not to be questioned. Who the “certain foreigner” was, who communicated the invention to Mr. Cummerow, has not come down to us.

It had, however, like the steamboat as a whole, to wait for a certain preparedness in the human intellect. Invention knocked hard, and sometimes often, in the early years of the century, before the doors of the mind were opened to receive it; and too frequently then the reception was but a surly one, and attention deferred from visitor to visitor until one came, as did Fulton, or Ericsson, who would not be denied.

The transfer of Ericsson to America left an open field for Mr. Pettit Smith, and the experiments carried out by the Screw Propeller Company had the effect of permanently directing the attention in Great Britain of those interested in such subjects. The screw used in the Archimedes “consisted of two half-threads, of an 8 feet pitch, 5 feet 9 inches in diameter. Each was 4 feet in length, and they were placed diametrically opposite each other at an angle of about 45 degrees on the propeller-shaft” (Lindsay). She was tried in 1839, and in 1840 Mr. Brunel spent some time in investigating her performance. His mind, bold and original in all its own conceptions, was quick to appreciate the new method; and, although the engines of the Great Britain were already begun, designed for paddle-wheels, he brought the directors of the company, who had undertaken the building of their own machinery, to consent to a change. The following details of the ship are taken from the “Life of Brunel:” Total length, 322 ft.; length of keel, 289 ft.; beam, 51 ft.; depth, 32 ft. 6 in.; draught of water, 16 ft.; tonnage measurement, 3,443 tons; displacement, 2,984 tons; number of cylinders, 4; diameter of cylinder, 88 in.; length of stroke, 6 ft.; weight of engines, 340 tons; weight of boilers, 200 tons; weight of water in boilers, 200 tons; weight of screw-shaft, 38 tons; diameter of screw, 15 ft. 6 in.; pitch of screw, 25 ft.; weight of screw, 4 tons; diameter of main drum, 18 ft.; diameter of screw-shaft drum, 6 ft.; weight of coal, 1,200 tons.

“In the construction of the Great Britain, the same care which had been spent in securing longitudinal strength in the wooden hull of the Great Western was now given to the suitable distribution of the metal.”

A balanced rudder and bilge keels were parts of her original construction, and an unusual method of lapping the plates was used. “Apart from their size, the design of the engines of the Great Britain necessarily presented many peculiarities. The boilers, which were 6 in number, were placed touching each other, so as to form one large boiler about 33 feet square, divided by one transverse and two longitudinal partitions.

“It would seem that the boiler was worked with a pressure of about 8 pounds on the square inch.

“The main shaft of the engine had a crank at either end of it, and was made hollow; a stream of water being kept running through it, so as to prevent heating in the bearings. An important part in the design was the method by which motion was transmitted from the engine-shaft to the screw-shaft, for the screw was arranged to go three revolutions to each revolution of the engines. Where the engines do not drive the screw directly, this is now universally effected by means of toothed gearing; but when the engines of the Great Britain were made, it was thought that this arrangement would be too jarring and noisy. After much consideration, chains were used, working round different-sized drums, with notches in them, into which fitted projections on the chains.”

On July 10, 1843, this (for the time) great ship was floated out of dock; but it was not until January 23, 1845, that she left Bristol for London, making on her voyage an average of 12¹⁄₃ knots an hour. She left Liverpool for New York on August 26th, and arrived on September 10th, having made the passage out in 14 days and 21 hours; she returned in 15¹⁄₂ days. During the next winter, after one more voyage to New York, alterations were made, to give a better supply of steam, and a new screw was fitted. She made two voyages to New York in 1846; and on September 22d she left Liverpool on a third, but overran her reckoning and stranded in Dundrum Bay, on the northeast coast of Ireland, when it was supposed she was only rounding the Isle of Man. This unfortunate event completed the ruin of the company, already in financial straits through the competition of the Cunard line; and the ship after her rescue, effected August 27, 1847, almost a year after grounding, was “sold to Messrs. Gibbs, Bright & Co., of Liverpool, by whom she was repaired and fitted with auxiliary engines of 500 nominal horse-power. On a general survey being made it was found that she had not suffered any alteration of form, nor was she at all strained. She was taken out of dock in October, 1851, and since that time she has made regular voyages between Liverpool and Australia.”

These last few lines appear in the “Life of Brunel,” published in 1870. But she was later changed into a sailing-ship, and only in 1886 stranded again at the Falkland Islands. She was floated; but being badly injured, was sold to serve as a hulk, and there no doubt will be passed the last days of what may be regarded one of the famous ships of the world. She was, for the time, as bold a conception as was her great designer’s later venture, the Great Eastern.

The acceptance by the English Government of the Cunard company’s bid for the contract for carrying the mails to America resulted in putting afloat, in 1840, the Acadia, Britannia, Columbia, and Caledonia. The first vessels of the Cunard line were all wooden paddle-wheel steamers, with engines by Napier, of Glasgow, of the usual side-lever class; the return-flue boilers and jet-condensers were used, the latter holding their place for many years to come, though surface condensation had already appeared as an experiment. The company was to carry the mails fortnightly between Liverpool, Halifax, and Boston, regular sailings to be adhered to, and four vessels to be employed, for the sum of £81,000 ($400,000) per annum. The contract was made for seven years, but was continued from time to time for forty-six—no break occurring in this nearly half-century’s service, when the Umbria—November 4, 1886—was the first ship in the history of the company to leave Liverpool on the regular day of sailing for America without mails. This break, however, was but momentary, and the line almost at once resumed its ancient duty.

The Britannia was the first of the fleet to sail; and, strange to say (from the usual seaman’s point of view), Friday, July 4, 1840, was the day selected. She arrived at Boston in 14 days and 8 hours, a very successful passage for the time.

It must have required considerable moral courage in the projectors to inaugurate such an undertaking on a day of the week which has been so long on the black-list of sailor superstition, notwithstanding it had the advantage of being the anniversary of the Declaration of American Independence. The success of this line ought certainly to rehabilitate Friday to a position of equality among the more fortunate days, though it will be observed that none of the transatlantic lines have yet selected it as a day of sailing.

The Britannia, which was representative of the quartette, was of the following dimensions: Length of keel and fore rake, 207 ft.; breadth of beam, 34 ft. 2 in.; depth of hold, 22 ft. 4 in.; mean draught, 16 ft. 10 in.; displacement, 2,050 tons; diameter of cylinder, 72¹⁄₂ in.; length of stroke, 82 in.; number of boilers, 4; pressure carried, 9 lbs. per sq. in.; number of furnaces, 12; fire-grate area, 222 ft.; indicated horse-power, 740; coal consumption per indicated horse-power per hour, 5.1 lbs.; coal consumption per day, 38 tons; bunker capacity, 640 tons; cargo capacity, 225 tons; cabin passengers carried, 90; average speed, 8.5 knots.

It will thus be seen that these ships were not an advance upon the Great Western, but were even slightly smaller, with about the same coal consumption and with rather less speed.

Plan of the Hibernia and Cambria.

A, saloon; B, pantry; C, centre state-rooms; D, gentlemen’s cabin; E, ladies’ cabin; S, stairs; F, wine cellar; G, G, G, goods; K, stewards’ berths in centre; H, H, coal ho’d; P, P, fore-cabin; Q, steerage; L, forecastle; R, store-room; M, mail-room; O, sail-room; V, engineers and firemen.

The Hibernia and Cambria followed in 1843 and 1845, 530 tons larger in displacement, with 1,040 indicated horse-power, and steaming about 9¹⁄₂ knots per hour. The plan gives an idea of these vessels which is far from fulfilling the ideas of the present Atlantic traveller, who considers himself a much-injured person if he has not electric lights and bells, baths ad libitum, and a reasonable amount of cubic space in which to bestow himself. None of the least of these existed in the earlier passenger ships; a narrow berth to sleep in and a plentiful supply of not over well prepared food were afforded, but beyond these there was little—notwithstanding the whole of the ship was given up to first-cabin passengers, emigrants not being carried in steamers until 1850, and it was not until 1853 that any steamer of the Cunard line was fitted for their accommodation.

How little it was possible to do for the wanderer to Europe in those days may be seen when comparison shows the Britannia to have been but half the length of the Umbria, but two-thirds her breadth, but six-tenths her depth, with much less than half her speed, and less than one-twentieth her power.

The establishment of the Cunard line marked the setting of ocean steam traffic firmly on its feet. What in 1835 had been stated by one of the most trusted scientific men of that time as an impossibility, and even in 1838 was in doubt, had become an accomplished fact; and while the proof of the practicability of the American route was making, preparations were in progress for the extension of steam lines which were soon to reach the ends of the world. A detailed statement of historic events is, of course, here out of place, but a mere mention of other prominent landmarks in steam navigation is almost a necessity. The founding of the Peninsular Company, in 1837, soon to extend its operations, under the name of the Peninsular and Oriental, to India, and the establishment, in 1840, of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, are dates not to be passed by. The establishment of the latter line was due to one of our own countrymen—William Wheelwright, of Newburyport, who, when consul at Guayaquil, grasped the conditions of the coast, and through his foresight became one of its greatest benefactors, and at the same time one of its most successful men. He failed in interesting our own people in the venture, and turned to London, where his success was greater. The Chili and Peru, the first vessels of this now great fleet, despatched in 1840, were but 198 feet long and of 700 tons. It was not until 1868 that the line was brought into direct communication with England by the establishment of monthly steamers from Liverpool to Valparaiso, via the Straits of Magellan. They had to await the diminished fuel consumption, which the company itself did so much to bring about through compound engines and surface condensation.

In the following years we ourselves were not idle. In 1843 the celebrated screw steamer Princeton—whose name is connected in so melancholy a manner with the bursting of the “Peacemaker” and the death of the then Secretary of the Navy, when he and a number of other high officials were visiting the ship—was built for the navy after Ericsson’s designs, and fitted with one of his propellers. She was 164 feet long, with 30 feet 6 inches beam, and a displacement, at 18 feet draught, of 1,046 tons. She had a very flat floor, with great sharpness forward and excessive leanness aft. She may almost be taken as representative of the later type in model. She had three boilers, each 26 feet long, 9 feet 4 inches high, and 7 feet wide, with a grate surface of 134 square feet. In 1845, Mr. R. B. Forbes, of Boston, so long known for his intimate and successful connection with shipping interests, built the auxiliary screw steamers Massachusetts and Edith for transatlantic trade. The former was somewhat the larger, and was 178 feet long and 32 broad. Her machinery was designed by Ericsson, and had 2 cylinders, 25 inches diameter, working nearly at right angles to each other. The machinery was built by Hogg & Delamater, of New York, and had the peculiarity of having the shaft pass through the stern at the side of the stern-post, under a patent of Ericsson’s. The propeller, on Ericsson’s principle, was 9¹⁄₂ feet diameter, and could be hoisted when the ship was under sail. She made but one voyage to Liverpool, and was then chartered by our Government to carry troops to Mexico, in 1846; but was later bought into the naval service and known as the Farralones.

In June, 1847, the same year which witnessed the establishment of the Pacific Mail Company, the Washington, of 4,000 tons displacement, and of 2,000 indicated horse-power, was the pioneer of a line between New York and Bremen, touching at Southampton. The Hermann followed a little later, but was somewhat larger, the dimensions of the two ships being:

Their displacement was about 4,000 tons. The Franklin followed in 1848, and the Humboldt in 1850, both being a good deal larger than the two preceding. The latter two were, however, employed only between New York and Havre.

In 1850 the Collins line was formed, with a large Government subsidy. In the same year the Inman line was established, with screw steamers built of iron—two differences from the prevailing construction, which were to bear so powerful an influence in a few years against the success of steamers of the type brought out by the Collins company. In 1858 came the North German Lloyd, with the modest beginnings of its now great fleet, and in 1861 the French Compagnie Transatlantique. In 1863 the National line was established; in 1866 the Williams & Guion (now the Guion), which had previously existed as a line of sailing-packets; and in 1870 the White Star.

These are those in which we are most interested, as they touch our shores; but in the interval other lines were directed to all parts of the world, few seaports remaining, of however little importance, or lying however far from civilization, that cannot now be reached by regular steam communication.

The establishment of the Collins line was one of the great events of steamship history. We had been so successful upon our coasts, rivers, and lakes, that it was but natural we should make some effort to do our part with steam upon the greater field of international trade. It was impossible that the monopoly which had existed for ten years in the hands of the Cunard company should not be combated by some one, and with the advent of the Collins line came a strife for supremacy, the memories of which are still vivid in the minds of thousands on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Cunard company at this time had increased their fleet by the addition of the America, Niagara, Europa, and Columbia, all built in 1848. Their machinery did not differ materially from that of the preceding ships, in general design, but there had, in the course of practice, come better workmanship and design of parts, and the boiler pressure had been increased to 13 pounds, bringing the expenditure per horse-power down to 3.8 pounds per hour. In these ships the freight capacity had been nearly doubled, fifty per cent. had been added to their passenger accommodation, and the company was altogether pursuing the successful career which was due a line which could command $35 a ton for freight from Liverpool to New York—a reminiscence which must make it appear the Golden Age to the unfortunate steamship-owner of to-day, who is now most happy with a seventh of such earnings.

The Collins steamers were a new departure in model and arrangement; they were built by William H. Brown, a famous builder of the time; exceeded in size and speed anything then afloat, and reduced the journey in 1851 and 1852 to about 11 days—though some voyages were made in less than 10 days. The Cunard line put afloat the Asia and Africa as competitors, but they neither equalled the American steamers in size nor speed. The former were of 3,620 tons displacement, with 1,000 indicated horse-power. The comparison of size between them and the Collins steamers is as follows:

The three other vessels of the Collins line were the Baltic, Atlantic, and Pacific. They formed a notable fleet, and fixed for many years to come the type of the American steamship in model and arrangement. They were the work of a man of genius who had the courage to cast aside tradition where it interfered with practical purposes. The bowsprit was dispensed with; the vertical stem, now so general, was adopted, and everything subordinated to the use of the ships as steamers.

But great disaster was in store for these fine ships. The Arctic, on September 21, 1854, while on her voyage out, was struck by the French steamer Vesta, in a fog off Cape Race, and but 46 out of the 268 persons on board were saved. The Pacific left Liverpool on June 23, 1856, and was never heard of after. The Adriatic, a much finer ship than any of her predecessors, was put afloat; but the line was doomed. Extravagance in construction and management, combined with the losses of two of their ships and a refusal of further aid from the Government, were too much for the line to bear, and in 1858 the end came. Ever since, the European companies, with the exception of the time during which the line from Philadelphia has been running and the time during which some desultory efforts have been put forth, have had to compete among themselves. The sworn statement of the Collins company had shown the first four ships to have cost $2,944,142.71. The actual average cost of each of the first 28 voyages was $65,215.64; and the average receipts, $48,286.85—showing a loss on each voyage of $16,928.79.

To discuss the causes of our failure to hold our own in the carrying trade of the world may seem somewhat out of place, but the subject is so interesting in many ways that a few words may not be amiss.

The following is a comparative table showing the steam tonnage of the United States and of the British Empire, beginning with the year in which ocean steam navigation may be said to have been put fairly on its feet. Our own is divided into “oversea,” or that which can trade beyond United States waters, and “enrolled,” which includes all in home waters:

It will be seen from this table how great the extension of the use of the steamboat had been in the United States in these earlier years, as compared with that elsewhere. In 1852 our enrolled tonnage had grown to more than half a million tons, or well on to three times the whole of that of the British Empire, and our oversea tonnage was about one-third of that of Great Britain and her dependencies.

One reason for this very rapid increase in the enrolled tonnage was, of course, the fact that railroads had not yet begun to seam the West, as they were shortly to do: the steamboat was the great and absolutely necessary means of transport, and was to hold its prominence in this regard for some years yet to come. When this change came, there came with it a change in circumstances which went far beyond all other causes in removing our shipping from the great place it had occupied in the first half of this century. But great as was the effect worked by this change, there were certain minor causes which have to be taken into account. We had grown in maritime power through the events of the Napoleonic wars—which, though they worked ruin to many an unlucky owner, enriched many more—as we were for some years almost the only neutral bottoms afloat; we had rapidly increased this power during the succeeding forty years, during which time our ships were notably the finest models and the most ably commanded on the seas; the best blood of New England went into the service, and one has but to read the reports of the English parliamentary commissions upon the shipping subject to realize the proud position which our ships and, above all, our ships’ captains held in the carrying trade. We had entered the steam competition with an energy and ability that promised much, but we gave little or no heed to changes in construction until long after they had been accepted by the rest of the world; and it is to this conservatism, paradoxical as the expression may seem applied to our countrymen, that part of our misfortune was due.

The first of the changes we were so unwilling to accept was that from wood to iron; the other was that from paddle to screw. Even so late as the end of the decade 1860-70, while all the world else was building ships of iron, propelled by screws, some of which were driven by compound engines, our last remaining great company, the Pacific Mail, put afloat four magnificent failures (from the commercial point of view), differing scarcely in any point, except in size, from those of 1850-56. They were of wood, and had the typically national over-head beam engine. They were most comfortable and luxurious boats; but the sending them into the battle of commerce at such a date, was like pitting the old wooden three-decker with her sixty-four pounders against the active steel cruiser of to-day and her modern guns. Many of the iron screws built at the same time are still in active service; but the fine old China, America, Alaska, and Japan are long since gone, and with them much of the company’s success and fortune.

Of course, one great reason for this non-acceptance was the fact that, with us, wood for ship-building was still plentiful, and that it was cheaper so to build than to build in iron, to which material English builders were driven by an exact reversal of these conditions; and the retention of the paddle over the screw was due in a certain degree to the more frequent necessity of repair of wooden screw ships, to which it is not possible to give the necessary structural strength at the stern to withstand successfully the jarring action of the screw at high speeds.

The part in advancing the British commercial fleet played by the abrogation of the navigation laws, in 1849, which had their birth in the time of Cromwell (and to which we have held with such tenacity, as ours were modelled upon theirs), need only be barely mentioned. British ship-owners were in despair at the change, and many sold off their ship property to avoid what they expected to be the ruin of the shipping trade, but the change was only to remove the fetters which they had worn so long that they did not know them as such.

But the great and overwhelming cause, to which the effect of our navigation laws were even secondary, was the opening up of the vast region lying west of the earlier formed States; the building of our gigantic system of railways; the exploitation, in a word, of the great interior domain, of the possibilities of which, preceding 1850, we were only dimly conscious, and so much of which had only just been added by the results of the Mexican War. It is so difficult, from the present standpoint, to realize the mighty work which has been done on the American continent in this short space of forty years, that its true bearings on this subject are sometimes disregarded. The fact that the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, at this date, was not running its trains beyond Cumberland, Md., will give an impression of the vastness of the work which was done later.

The period 1850-60 cannot be passed over without a mention of the Great Eastern, though she can hardly be said to have been in the line of practical development, which was not so much in enlargement of hull as in change in character of machinery. Brunel’s son, in his “Life” of his father, says: “It was no doubt his connection with the Australian Mail Company (1851-53) that led Mr. Brunel to work out into practical shape the idea of a great ship for the Indian or Australian service, which had long occupied his mind.”

The Great Eastern was to attempt to solve by her bulk the problem of coal capacity which was later to be solved by high pressures and surface condensation. The ship finally determined on was 680 feet long, 83 feet broad, with a mean draught of 25 feet, with screw engines of 4,000 indicated horse-power and paddle-engines of 2,600, to work with steam from 15 to 25 pounds pressure—thus curiously uniting in herself at this transition period the two rival systems of propulsion. She was begun at Millwall, London, in the spring of 1854, and was finally launched, after many difficulties, on January 30, 1858. Her history is too well known to be dwelt upon here. She has experienced many vicissitudes and misfortunes, and it is well that her great projector (who paid for her with his life, as he died the year after her launching) did not live to see her used as an exhibit, in 1886, in the River Mersey, her great sides serving to blazon the name and fame of a Liverpool clothing establishment. She was sold the next year for the pitiful sum of £8,000 and broken up.

The year 1855 marks the high-water mark of the paddle-steamer era. In that year were built the Adriatic, by the Collins line, and the Persia, as a competitor (and the twenty-eighth ship of the company), by the Cunard. But the former was of wood, the latter of iron. She was among the earlier ships of this material to be built by the Cunard company, and, with the slightly larger Scotia, built in 1862, was, for some years after the cessation of the Collins line, the favorite and most successful steamer upon the Atlantic. She was 376 feet long, 45 feet 3 inches broad, and of about 5,500 tons displacement. Her cylinders were 100¹⁄₂ inches diameter, with 120 inches stroke, and she had—as also the preceding ship, the Arabia—tubular boilers instead of the old flue.

Model of the Persia and Scotia.

Diagram showing Decrease in Expediture of Coal per indicated Horse-power per hour based on Good Average Practice

Diagram showing increase in Steam-pressures based on good average Practice

How great an advantage she was upon their first ship will be seen by the following comparison:

Thus, for two and a half times the quantity of coal nearly three and a half times the cargo was carried, and nearly three times the number of passengers. This result was due partially to increased engine efficiency, and partially to increased size of ship; and thus to a relative reduction of the power necessary to drive a given amount of displacement.

The Scotia was almost a sister ship to the Persia, slightly exceeding her in size, but with no radical differences which would mark her as an advance upon the latter. She was the last of the old régime in the Atlantic trade, and the same year in which she was built saw the complete acceptance by the Cunard company of the newer order of things, in the building of the iron screw steamer China, of 4,000 tons displacement, with oscillating geared screw engines of 2,200 indicated horse-power, with an average speed of 12.9 knots on a daily expenditure of 82 tons of coal. She was the first of their ships to be fitted with a surface condenser. The Scotia had been built as a paddle steamer rather in deference to the prejudices of passengers than in conformity to the judgment of the company, which had put afloat iron screw ships for their Mediterranean trade as early as 1852 and 1853.

The introduction of surface condensation and of higher pressures were the two necessary elements in a radical advance in marine engineering. Neither of these was a new proposal;[3] several patents had been taken out for the former at a very early date, both in America and in England; and in 1838 the Wilberforce, a boat running between London and Hull, was so fitted. Very high pressures, from almost the very beginning, had been carried in the steamers on our Western waters; and in 1811 Oliver Evans published, in Philadelphia, a pamphlet dealing with the subject, in which he advocated pressures of at least 100 to 120 pounds per square inch, and patented a boiler which was the parent of the long, cylindrical type which came into such general use in our river navigation. The sea-going public resolutely resisted the change to high pressures for nearly forty years, there being a very slow and gradual advance from 1 and 2 pounds to the 8 and 9 carried by the Great Britain and Britannia. In 1850 the Arctic carried 18 and in 1856 25 was not uncommon. Some of the foremost early engineers favored cast-iron boilers (see evidence before parliamentary committee, 1817); and the boiler in general use in England up to 1850 was a great rectangular box, usually with three furnaces and flues, all the faces of which were planes.[4]

Longitudinal Section of the Warship Duilio.

[Larger image] (157 kB)

Though tubular boilers did not displace the flue boiler in British practice to any great degree before 1850, many examples were in use in America at that date, but chiefly in other than sea-going steamers. Robert L. Stevens, of Hoboken, built as early as 1832 “the now standard form of return tubular boilers for moderate pressures” (Professor R. H. Thurston). But it worked its way into sea practice very slowly; and the multitubular boiler, in any of its several forms, cannot be said to have been fairly adopted in either American or British sea-going ships before the date first mentioned, though employed in the Hudson River and Long Island Sound steamers, in one of the former of which, the Thomas Powell, built in 1850, a steam pressure of 50 pounds was used.

The Britannic.

[Larger image] (112 kB)

There had been this slow and gradual advance in ocean steam pressures, with a consequent reduction in coal expenditure, when in 1856 came a movement in the direction of economy by the introduction of the compound engine, by Messrs. Randolph Elder & Co. (later John Elder & Co.), which was soon to develop into a revolution in marine steam enginery. The Pacific Steam Navigation Company has the credit of first accepting this change in applying it to their ships, the Valparaiso and Inca. The original pressure used was 25 pounds to the inch: the cylinders were 50 and 90 inches in diameter, and the piston speed from 230 to 250 feet per minute. The idea of using steam expansively by this means was of course not new, as it dates back to Hornblower (1781), but with the low pressures which had been used at sea there was no reason for its adoption afloat. Difficulties were experienced by the Pacific company with their earlier engines, but the line adhered to their change, and for nearly fourteen years were almost alone in their practice.

These changes made the use of a cylindrical boiler necessary, as the form best able to withstand the increased pressure. The old box-like shape has disappeared; and if the shade of Oliver Evans is ever able to visit us, it must be with an intense feeling of satisfaction to find his ideas of eighty years since now accepted by all the world.

The date 1870 marks the advent of a new type of ship, in those of the Oceanic Company, better known as the White Star line, built of iron by Harland & Wolff, of Belfast—engined with compound engines, and of extreme length as compared with their breadth. They established a new form, style, and interior arrangement, which has largely been followed by other lines, though the extreme disproportion of length and beam is now disappearing. The Britannic and Germanic, the two largest of the earlier of this line, are 468 feet in length and 45 feet 3 inches in beam, carrying 220 cabin passengers and 1,100 in the steerage, besides 150 crew. They develop 5,000 indicated horse-power, and make their passage, with remarkable regularity, in about 8 days 10 hours to Queenstown. The earlier ships of this line, when first built, had a means of dropping their propeller-shaft so as to immerse more deeply the screw; so many inconveniences, however, were associated with this that it was given up. Their general arrangement was a most marked advance upon that of their predecessors—an excellent move was placing the saloon forward instead of in the stern, a change almost universally followed.

In the same year with the Britannic came out the City of Berlin, of the Inman line, for some years the largest steamer afloat (after the Great Eastern), being 520 feet in length by 44 feet beam, of 5,000 indicated power, and in every way a magnificent ship.

The Bothnia and Scythia were also built in 1874, by the Cunard company, as representatives of the new type, but were smaller than the ships of the same period built by the Inman and White Star lines. They were of 6,080 tons displacement and 2,780 indicated horse-power, with a speed of 13 knots. The pressure carried was 60 pounds. These ships had by far the largest cargo-carrying capacity (3,000 tons measurement) and passenger accommodation (340 first-cabin) of any yet built by the company. With the addition of this great number of steamers, change was not to be expected for some years; and it was not until 1879, when the Guion company put afloat the Arizona, that a beginning was made of the tremendous rivalry which has resulted in putting upon the seas, not only the wonderful ships which are now running upon the Atlantic, but in extending greatly the size and speed of those employed in other service.

Several things had combined in the latter part of this decade to bring about this advance. The great change between 1860 and 1872, from the causes already noted, which had reduced coal consumption by one-half, was followed by the introduction of corrugated flues and steel as a material for both boilers and hull. With this came still higher pressures, which were carried from 60 to 80 and 90 pounds. In August, 1881, a very interesting paper was read by Mr. F. C. Marshall, of Newcastle, before the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, in which he showed that a saving of 13.37 per cent. in fuel had been arrived at since 1872. The general type of engine and boiler had remained the same in these nine years, but the increased saving had been due chiefly to increased pressures. It is curious that at the reading of both the paper by Sir Frederick Bramwell, in 1872, and that of Mr. Marshall, in 1881, there should have been pretty generally expressed a feeling that something like a finality had been reached. So little was this opinion true that, though over thirteen per cent. saving had been effected between these two dates, a percentage of gain more than double this was to be recorded between the latter date and 1886. In these matters it is dangerous to prophesy; it is safer to believe all things possible. Certainly the wildest dreamer of 1872 did not look forward to crossing the Atlantic at 20 knots as a not unusual speed.

The Etruria

[Larger image] (178 kB)

In 1874 triple-expansion engines had been designed for the Propontis by Mr. A. C. Kirk, of Napier & Sons, of Glasgow, which, on account of failure in the boilers which were used, did not give at first the results hoped for. In 1881 the Messrs. Napier fitted the Aberdeen with engines of the same kind, steam at 125 pounds pressure per square inch being used. In the next two years the change proceeded slowly, but by 1885 the engineering mind had so largely accepted it that a very large proportion of the engines built in that year were on this principle, and at the present it may be regarded as being fully accepted as was the compound engine ten years since. The saving in fuel is generally reckoned at from twenty to twenty-five per cent., or, to put it more graphically, in the words of Mr. Parker, Chief Engineer Surveyor of Lloyds, in his interesting paper, read in July, 1886, before the Institution of Naval Architects: “Two large passenger steamers, of over 4,500 gross tonnage, having engines of about 6,000 indicated horse-power, built of the same dimensions, from the same lines, with similar propellers, are exactly alike in every respect, except so far as their machinery is concerned. One vessel is fitted with triple-expansion engines, working at a pressure of 145 pounds per square inch; while the other vessel is fitted with ordinary compound engines, working at a pressure of 90 pounds per square inch. Both vessels are engaged in the same trade and steam at the same rate of speed, viz., 12 knots an hour. The latter vessel in a round voyage of 84 days burns 1,200 tons more coal than the former.”

In the epoch 1879 to 1887 the following great ships had been placed upon the Liverpool and New York lines, their best speeds to that date being as shown:

The time had thus been shortened much more than half since 1840, and had been lessened forty per cent. since 1860.

In addition to the ships mentioned, there had been placed upon the line from Bremen to New York (between 1879 and 1886) touching at Southampton, England, eight new ships of the North German Lloyd, which form 28 altogether, the most compact and uniform fleet upon the Atlantic. The Trave, Saale, and Aller, were then marvels of splendor and comfort, ranking in speed and power very little short of the fastest of the Liverpool ships. They, as were the others of the company’s eight “express” steamers, were built by the great firm of John Elder & Co., of Glasgow, their machinery being designed by Mr. Bryce-Douglas, to whose genius was also due that of the Etruria and Umbria, the Oregon, Arizona, and Alaska. The engines of the Trave, Saale, and Aller, however, were triple-expansion, as were the Gascogne, Bourgogne, and Champagne (their equals in speed and equipment), of the French Compagnie Transatlantique, which were built in France. All these steamers are of steel, with cellular bottoms carefully subdivided, and fitted with a luxury and comfort quite unknown thirty years ago.

Cross-section of the Oregon.

Cross-section of the Servia.

Triple-expansion Engine of the Aller, Trave, and Saale.

It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to go beyond them without a change to twin screws. If more than the Umbria’s power was to be developed it was safer to use it through two shafts, and the depth of water on the New York bar is a hindrance to the use of a much greater diameter of screw. Mr. Griscom, of Philadelphia, was the bold manager to take the first step by laying down the Inman Company’s ships in 1887, the first of which, the City of New York, was ready for trial in thirteen months after the signing of the contract with Messrs. James & George Thompson, of Clydebank: a wonderful performance. The Teutonic and Majestic quickly after took shape in the yard of Messrs. Harland & Wolff, of Belfast, the place of birth of all of the White Star fleet. These two lines were thus the first to accept the changed conditions, and the City of New York and City of Paris of the former, and the Teutonic and Majestic of the latter, still mark the high-water mark of achievement, both as regards performance as a machine and the comfort and luxury of the passenger. The “Cities,” as they are familiarly termed, are 560 feet in length, by 63 feet broad, displace 13,000 tons, and indicate over 18,000 horse-power. The two White Stars are 582 feet long, by 57 feet 6 inches broad, of 12,000 tons displacement, and of nearly equal horse-power with their two great competitors. In less than twenty years these lines had thus nearly doubled the size of their ships, and more than tripled their power.

Longitudinal Section of the Champagne.

[Larger image] (143 kB)

It may be of interest to the American public to know that the City of New York and City of Paris are but two of the largest fleet under one management on the North Atlantic. Though under one control it is under three flags—English, Belgian, and American—our own, thanks to the wisdom of Congress, covering but a small contingent, though our law-makers for several years have been besieged to allow them to become American in nationality as well as ownership. It would certainly seem that they were quite as worthy of it as some of our importations of another kind, but we shall probably have to wait for a little more breadth of thought and idea under the dome at Washington before this change can be brought about.

The building of these four ships seems to have given an impetus to the whole of the steamship world: the Hamburg-American lines started into new life with the Columbia, Normannia, Augusta Victoria, and Fuerst Bismarck, twin screws of 9,500 and 10,500 displacement, which have averaged in their best runs from New York to Southampton 19.01, 18.91, 18.31, and 19.78 knots in the order named, the distance being about 3,075 knots.

The French Company has added the twin-screw Touraine of 11,675 tons and 18¹⁄₂ knots sustained speed to their already splendid fleet, and the North German Lloyds have since 1887 built the Lahn, Spree, and Havel, all single screws; and the two last of 7,000 tons with 13,000 horse-power and a speed of 18¹⁄₂ knots. These latter ships would probably have been twin screws had the docks of Bremerhaven afforded sufficient width of entrance; but whether this be the case or not, the probability is that in the future it will be the dock which will yield and not the ship. There is no need to make comparison of these ships in equipment. Luxury has been carried as far as the present human invention and imagination can take it. Suites for families are arranged with private sitting-rooms and private tables, so that, barring the roll so uneasy to the unhappy landsman, one could scarce know the change from the most luxurious apartment of the Brevoort.

Such are the ships of to-day, but displacement from their eminence is already in discussion. The builders of the City of New York are guaranteeing a vessel to cross the Atlantic in 5 days, or at a speed of 23¹⁄₂ knots, the probable elements of this projected vessel being given by Engineering as a length of 630 feet and a beam of 70, with 33,000 indicated horse-power. It is a long step, but one can hardly doubt it will soon be taken.

But that this step will be greatly aided by any material change in the marine steam engine in the very near future is not probable, the difficulty is now not with the engine but with the boiler; forced draught and the higher pressures call imperatively for a new development in the steam producer; leaky tubes and joints and a rapid deterioration through the effort to keep up the high pressures necessary for the successful performance of the new type of engine are the shortcomings which must be successfully combated before we can make another great advance. Unfortunately there is another draw-back, for which the remedy will be even more difficult, the suffering of the firemen induced by the greater heat of the higher pressures. Let us hope that genius will yet invent a mechanical stoker and that we may not of necessity subject our fellow-beings to the 140° too frequently found in our modern fire-rooms.

We may fitly place here a tabulation of the very wonderful achievements of the ships first mentioned, based on official data in Engineering of June 19 and July 10, 1891, and covering, in the case of the Liverpool ships, the season of 1890, except for the City of Paris, which is for 1889. (See table on p. [45].)

The coal consumption is also officially stated by the journal from which the above is compiled as follows: The City of New York, 328 tons: Teutonic, 316 tons: Etruria, 330 tons. This shows an actual expenditure of about 1.6 lb. per hour in the case of the Teutonic: slightly greater for the City of New York, and over 1.9 for the Etruria.

But in the month of August, 1891, both the Teutonic and Majestic won still greater laurels, the latter crossing from Queenstown to New York in 5 days 18 hours and 8 minutes; the former in 5 days 16 hours and 31 minutes, and averaging for the run of 2,778 miles 20.35 knots per hour, the best day’s run being 517 knots.

Fastest Passages of the more Important Steamers between New York and English Ports during the Season of 1890.[5]

Note.—The nautical mile is one-sixtieth of a degree of the Equator, and is usually reckoned 6,080 feet, the statute mile being 5,280; twenty nautical miles are thus about twenty-three statute miles. The shortest distance is the arc of the great circle of the Earth passing through the two ports; any deviation from this by varying the course on account of intervening land or ice increases the distance to be run.

The crown is thus for the moment with the White Star, nor is it likely to be torn away by anything short of the tremendous effort involved in putting afloat a new, a bigger, and a more costly ship. Owners must, of course, count the cost of such rivalry and must put against the gain of say sixteen hours, in order to come to the desired five days and twenty-three knots, the cost of the thousand or twelve hundred tons more of coal which will have to be burned, the doubled number of engine and fire-room force, the larger crew, the interest on the greater investment. It is a large price to pay for a gain of so small a bit of that we generally hold so cheap—but it will be paid.

It has been impossible, of course, in a single chapter to do more than touch upon the vast changes, and their causes, which have had place in this great factor of human progress. Higher pressures and greater expansions: condensation of the exhaust steam, and its return to the boiler without the new admixture of sea-water, and the consequent necessity of frequent blowing off, which comparatively but a few years ago was so common; a better form of screw; the extensive use of steel in machinery, by which parts have been lightened, and by the use of which higher boiler-pressures are made possible—these are the main steps. But in addition to steel, high pressures, and the several other elements named which have gone to make up this progress, there was another cause in the work chiefly done by the late W. Froude, to be specially noticed as being that which has done more than the work of any other man to determine the most suitable forms for ships, and to establish the principles governing resistance. The ship-designer has, by this work, been put upon comparatively firm ground, instead of having a mental footing as unstable, almost, as the element in which his ships are destined to float.

It is not possible to go below the surface of such a subject in a popular paper, and it must suffice to speak of Mr. Froude’s deductions, in which he divided the resistances met by ships into two principal parts: the surface or skin friction, and the wave-making resistance (which latter has no existence in the case of a totally submerged body—only begins to exist when the body is near the surface, and has its full effect when the body is only partially submerged). He showed that the surface friction constitutes almost the whole resistance at moderate speeds, and a very great percentage at all speeds; that the immersed midship section area which formerly weighed so much in the minds of naval architects was of much less importance than was supposed, and that ships must have a length corresponding in a degree to the length of wave produced by the speed at which they are to be driven.

The Chilian Cruiser Esmeralda.

[Larger image] (159 kB)

He showed that at high speeds waves of two different characters are produced: the one class largest at the bow, which separate from the ship, decreasing in successive undulations without afterward affecting her progress; the other, those in which the wave-crests are at right angles to the ship’s course, and the positions of these crests have a very telling effect upon the resistance.

As the ship’s speed is increased the spaces between the crests of these lengthen in unison with the speed, and it has been shown that when the speed is such that a wave-crest would be at the middle point of the after body (or quarter) the wave-making resistance is least, and that it is greatest when the hollow appears at this point.

A ship must therefore be of a length that depends largely upon the length of wave which at a high speed she will tend to produce in order that she may be driven at such a speed without an expenditure of power disproportionate to the effect produced. This length, if very high speeds are desired, is best wholly taken up in fining the entrance and run, leaving no parallelism of middle body, and broadening and deepening the ship to keep the necessary displacement. The wave-action at several speeds is well shown in the illustrations, which are from instantaneous photographs, showing the Chilian cruiser Esmeralda at her full speed of 18 knots, when on her trial off Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the Giovanni Bausan, of the Italian navy (almost a sister ship to the Esmeralda), at a moderate speed, and H.M.S. Impérieuse, at about 17¹⁄₄ knots. [See illustration, p. [64].] The following are the principal details of the Esmeralda and Impérieuse:

The eddy-making resistance is greater or less, of course, as the form is blunted or finer, and there is less resistance with a blunt bow and finely formed after-body than were the two reversed. Our practical towing friends will be glad to know that Mr. Froude substantiates their oft-reiterated assertion that a log tows more easily butt-end foremost. In the Merkara, a merchant ship built by Mr. Denny, of 3,980 tons, 360 feet length, 37.2 feet breadth, and 16.25 feet draught, this resistance is, at all speeds, about eight per cent. of the surface friction, which at the maximum speed of thirteen knots, at which she was intended to be run, still formed nearly eighty per cent. of the whole resistance.

A very wonderful result of these experiments has been to show (in the words of Mr. Froude) “what an exceedingly small force, after all, is the resistance of a ship compared with the apparent magnitude of the phenomena involved. Scarcely anyone, I imagine, seeing the new frigate Shah (of 6,250 tons displacement) steaming at full speed (from sixteen to seventeen knots) would be inclined, at first sight, to credit what is nevertheless a fact, that the whole propulsive force necessary to produce that apparently tremendous effect is only 27 tons—in fact, less than one two-hundredth part of the weight of the vessel—and of this small propulsive force at least 15 tons, or more than one-half, is employed in overcoming surface friction simply.”

The Giovanni Bausan, of the Italian Navy. (From an instantaneous photograph.)

[Larger image] (176 kB)

Of course, very small vessels, as torpedo-boats, have been driven at very high speeds, but the power necessary is in enormous disproportion as compared with the above, a development in 135-foot torpedo boats of from 1,000 to 1,500 horse-power and more being not uncommon.

The acceptance of the results of Mr. Froude’s deductions has naturally led to an increase in the beam of fast ocean steamers; we find all the later-built to be much broadened, and there is a still increasing tendency in that direction. It is needless to say how much this means in many ways to the passenger.

The Belted Cruiser Orlando, with Twin Screws.

[Larger image] (164 kB)

Collision will and must remain the great and really almost the one danger which the North Atlantic traveller need fear. He can rarely hope to cross in the usual steam route without experiencing a run of some hundreds of miles through fog, especially on leaving or approaching our coast. So long as the Gulf Stream and the cold inlying current from the north move in juxtaposition as they do, so long will the fog be almost always present upon the border-land dividing them. How easy it is for a great ship to be sunk was shown in the case of the Oregon. A blow from a pygmy schooner not more than one-tenth her size, and a hole was opened through her side which unfortunate circumstances combined to make fatal, and the great vessel, a triumph of human skill in hull and machinery, is lying in a few hours upon the bottom of the sea, with a million days of skilled labor, as represented by ship and cargo, in this moment made valueless. Who can over estimate the care and responsibility upon the man who commands such a ship? In what other calling are they found as such a constant part of daily life?

The only remedy for such an accident as that which befell the unluckly Oregon seems to be a subdivision such as is carried out in all the greater ships of late years; and that this has been carried to a degree which has made the finer passenger ships practically unsinkable, unless under most exceptional circumstances, would seem quite sure.[6]

How wonderful has been the scale upon which this great industry of carriage by steam vessels has grown can only be shown by tables of statistics.

The steam tonnage in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, beginning with 1840, was as follows:

This statement, showing our steam tonnage registered for foreign trade to be 6,000 tons less in 1885 than in 1870, is not an encouraging one, especially when taken in connection with the fact that our tonnage in foreign trade has steadily lessened, and the percentage of our imports carried in American vessels has dwindled from 75.2 per cent. in 1856 to 66.5 in 1860; to 35.6 per cent. in 1870; and to 12.29 per cent. in 1890. Even during the civil war it never fell below 27.5 per cent.

The amount of steam tonnage built in the United States and in Great Britain at intervals of five years from 1855 is as follows:

The startling steam tonnage of 1883 (nearly three-quarters of a million tons) built in Great Britain, of which 134,785 were built at Glasgow, 125,870 at the Tyne ports, and 117,776[8] at Sunderland, was followed by a great depression. In 1884 but a little over half that of the preceding year was built (415,095 tons); and in 1885 this was again almost halved, the output falling to only 221,918 tons, and the average size also falling off from 724 tons in 1883 to 456 in 1885. But in the last five years Great Britain has moved forward with a constantly accelerated pace, culminating in the vast figures of 1890, when she put afloat over 80 per cent. of the world’s production for the year.

Nearly or, practically, quite all of the vast fleet represented by these figures are of iron or steel; the tonnage of the wooden steamers generally falling in later years in Great Britain to a total of 1,000 tons or less, and this made up of vessels averaging not more than 30 tons each.

The City of Rome.

[Larger image] (183 kB)

Steel may be said to have almost supplanted iron as a material; in 1880 but 10 per cent. of British steam vessels were built of this, as against 90 per cent. of iron; in 1890 but 4 per cent. were of the latter metal. There is, however, a tendency on the part of some owners to return to iron as less liable to the pitting caused by the galvanic action arising from want of homogeneity in the steel; a vessel’s bottom, unless well guarded by protective compositions, being frequently severely corroded, generally in small pits the size of a pea, but often extending to large patches.

One would think that this immense yearly addition of steamships represented in the foregoing tables would soon go beyond the world’s needs, but the almost incredible losses from wrecks, casualties, and other reasons for disappearance from the register, must be considered. There were lost or abandoned, in the fiscal year ending June 1890, 238 steamers and 588 sailing vessels of our fleet, a total of 165,508 tons; 311,220 tons disappearing in the same period from the British Register, going to swell the gigantic total of 6,795 vessels, representing 2,349,034 tons of British shipping totally lost at sea in the ten years 1880-89 inclusive.

In the face of these tremendous figures the ship-builder need not despair—he need only wait; a few slack years and the gaps in the ranks become so great that building of necessity must re-begin. The lives of ships are indeed more precarious than those of us mortals. They perish at the annual rate of about 30 in the 1,000, whereas our general chances are one-third better. But these losses of ships carry with them the lives of many brave men; with the wrecks above enumerated more than 20,000 persons perished. In this bald statement what vistas of suffering, incapacity, carelessness, negligence, misfortune, and heroism are opened up!

Despite the danger of prophecy it would seem safe to say that we shall not go, in the next five years, far beyond the changes which had taken pretty complete shape by 1887. For a while at least the startling transitions of the last decade are not to be looked for, and we can only expect greater power in greater ships on the lines already established. It is well these great transitions should not come too frequently; the ship-owner should be allowed a little breathing time, and should not be continually oppressed by a nightmare of obsolete ships. We may safely say, too, that our own country will have a greater share in shipbuilding than in past years. Our output since 1885 has been steadily increasing, and though the amount has not been great, the change wrought in our shipyards has been revolutionary. The demands of the navy have enabled them to extend and reorganize their plant and staff until they are now on a plane with the best of the world. Coincident with the transformation of the shipyards, and for the same reason, has been that of our steel industry, whereby we now have establishments which it is not Chauvinistic to say are more perfectly equipped than elsewhere.[9] If the rebuilding of the navy had served no other purpose, it had been money well spent.

Having reached this stage our builders can now take large orders much more cheaply than a few years since, and which in 1887 they could not have taken at all had it been required to supply all parts from our own industrial establishments. This fact, taken with the dawn of a new era in our commercial relations, wherein the ship-owner will have a fair chance of carrying both ways, gives good prospect of an early rehabilitation of our ancient power upon the sea.

SPEED IN OCEAN STEAMERS.
By A. E. SEATON.

The Viking’s Craft and the Modern “Greyhound”—Problems of Inertia and Resistance—Primary Condition for High Speed—What is Meant by “Coefficient of Fineness” and “Indicated Horse-Power”—Advance in Economical Engines—What the Compound Engine Effected—A Comparison of Fast Steamers from 1836 to 1890—Prejudice Against Propellers and High Pressures—Advantages of more than One Screw Propeller—Attempts at Propulsion by Turbine Wheels, Ejections, and Pumps—The Introduction of Siemens-Martin Steel in 1875 the Chief Factor in the Success of Modern Fast Steamers—Decrease in Coal Consumption—Importance of Forced Draughts—The Problem of Mechanical Stoking—Possibilities of Liquid Fuel—Is the Present Speed Likely to be Increased?

FROM the earliest days the question of the speed of ships has been one of interest to those associated with nautical matters, both from its commercial value, its value in times of emergency, and its forming the chief attraction of a pastime common to all maritime nations. There is no doubt that the emulation excited by the yacht-race of to-day does not exceed that of the ancients in their galley races. The skill of the naval architect is always more or less directed to getting the best possible speed permitted by the other conditions imposed upon him in the designing of ships of all classes, and his reputation has been, and is to-day, perhaps, more dependent on this than on any other subject connected with his profession. To-day he is faced with a competition that did not exist in the past, and his ears are constantly assailed by the cry for higher speed; and whereas a few years ago it was a common impression that the maximum limit had been reached, we have witnessed, during the past three or four years, performances by ships, both large and small, of speeds then undreamed of. It is quite true that there has existed in the minds of visionaries, whose chief occupation is to add to the receipts of the patent offices, speeds even beyond those now attained, and although it is possible that some of their predictions may be verified, it is at the same time certain that success will not be achieved by the means suggested by these gentlemen. It is common experience with shipowners and shipbuilders to have propounded to them means whereby even thirty knots per hour may be realized, and these backed up by very elaborate calculations as proof, but which, when investigated, are found, like those of a well-known writer of scientific romance, to be wanting in some little detail, insignificant at first sight, but absolutely essential to complete the proof. So far no great departure from the existing form of ship, nor from the method of propulsion, has resulted in obtaining a higher speed than is common with ordinary ships of the same dimensions; and in nearly every case such departures have mortified the inventors as well as disappointed the public by turning out absolute failures; and there is no good reason to suppose that further successes than have already been attained will be achieved in any other way than by improving the conditions that now obtain, both as regards form of ship and method of propulsion, inasmuch as the physical causes which combine to retard the motion of a vessel, and the physical forces which are employed in overcoming that resistance, remain to-day as they ever were, and are—in fact, Nature’s immutable laws. The commercial question is also one that presses very hardly at all times and must continue to do so more and more, as will be seen later on. The Atlantic greyhound of to-day is, in immersed form, substantially that of the viking’s craft of more than a thousand years ago. And if we look to Nature for our study we shall find that the swiftest fish are not unlike in general form to the submerged part of a ship; and the comparison is the more easily accepted when it is remembered that the fish is wholly submerged while the ship is only partially so. The one has to contend with waves and other surface disturbances, and must perforce keep above the water, while the other is free from such disturbing elements and conditions, and pursues its course in practically smooth water. H. B. M. S. Polyphemus is the nearest approach to the fish conditions in a sea-going ship that has proved successful.

H. B. M. S. Polyphemus at Full Speed—18⁵⁄₈ knots.

[Larger image] (148 kB)

In order to produce motion at all, the inertia of the ship, or that quality which every concrete body possesses of remaining at rest until disturbed, has to be overcome, and when the ship is in motion through the water there is resistance of a two-fold kind—that due to the disturbance of the water, and that due to the frictional resistance of the immersed surface. If a thin sheet of metal is moved edgewise through water it offers a decided resistance, even if its surface be smooth and bright; it will also be noted that this resistance increases very rapidly as the speed is increased, and that the larger the area the greater is the resistance. If this sheet of metal is moved in a direction at right angles to its surface the resistance is of course great: in fact, it is very great compared with that of the previous experiment, and the disturbance of the water is considerable. If a log of timber is to be towed from one place to another, it is a common observation that an experienced boatman causes it to move with its big end first, because he finds it easier work that way than with the smaller end first; in the latter case he has the same section of timber offering resistance to the log’s passage, but owing to its wedge-like form the pressure on its long sides is greater than when towed the other way, and the friction of the water past these sides—which are generally more or less rough—causes very great resistance; no doubt, for the same reason, those forms of ships adopted for centuries by some European nations, and known to mariners as “cod’s-head and mackerel-tail” shape, were such good sailers; and if to-day we were content with the maximum speed attained by such vessels, it is possible we might copy their form with advantage. If, however, we attempted to move them, either by sail or mechanical power, at a higher rate, we should find the increase in speed to be of no account, but the increase in wave disturbance would be great; in other words, the greater portion of the additional power would be used up in producing this water disturbance, or waves, instead of propelling the ship.

When the propeller of a steamer is first set in motion it does little else than project a stream of water in the direction opposite to that in which it is desired to move the vessel; it is presently seen that the latter begins to move, indicating that the inertia of the ship has been overcome by the reaction of that stream of water from the propeller; the propeller still continues to project the stream, the ship in the meanwhile increasing in speed, or, as sailors term it, “gathering way,” showing that the power expended is still in excess of the resistance of the ship, inasmuch as something is producing an augmentation of speed; it is afterward noticed that the ship continues to move at a uniform rate, and that the stream of water is still projected by the propeller, but at a lower velocity compared with the surrounding still water than was the case when the vessel was at rest. This means that the power and the resistance are evenly balanced, and that the work done by the ship in moving forward is exactly equal to that of the water moving in the opposite direction through the surrounding water. The vessel has now stored up in herself what is called energy, which is the power developed in overcoming the inertia, so that if the engine stops she still progresses forward and does not come to a standstill until the whole of that stored-up power is expended. If the vessel is a large and heavy one, its speed will be, when under way, virtually uniform, in spite of casual changes of resistance due to wind and waves; and this is one of the reasons for large ships being a necessity for successful passages on stations like the North Atlantic, and it is likewise one of the reasons why light craft like torpedo-boats show such a poor performance in stormy weather.

The primary condition for high speed is fineness of form, so that the water at the bow of the vessel may be separated and thrown to one side, and brought to rest again at the stern and behind the vessel with the least possible disturbance, and the measure of efficiency of form for the maximum speed intended is inversely as the height of the waves of disturbance. A ship that has been designed to attain a speed of 15 knots will, when moving at 12 knots, show a very slight disturbance indeed, and in one designed for 18 knots, when moving at this lower speed, it will be scarcely observable; but however fine the lines of a ship may be, she must at every speed produce some disturbance, although it may be very slight, as the water displaced by her must be raised above the normal level and replaced at the normal level; hence, at or near the bow of a ship there is always the crest of a wave, and at or near the stern the hollow of one. When a vessel is going at its maximum speed, and is properly designed for that speed, the wave should not be very high, nor should it extend beyond the immediate neighborhood of the bow; likewise the wave of replacement should be the same at or near the stern of a ship, and the “wake,” or disturbance of water left behind in the track of the ship, should be narrow.

Among naval architects and others it is usual to judge of the forms of ships by the relation they bear to rectangular blocks of the same dimensions; that is to say, a ship whose dimensions are—length, 100 feet; breadth, 20 feet, and draft of water, 10 feet, and whose displacement is 12,000 cubic feet, would be said to have a coefficient of fineness of 0.6, or that her fineness was sixty per cent., inasmuch as that of a rectangular block[10] of the same dimensions would be 20,000 cubic feet.

Modern experience has shown that for speeds not exceeding 9 knots, and with ships of the tonnage now common for general ocean work, the bow may be very bluff and the stern only sufficiently fine to allow free access of water to the propeller, so that the coefficient of such vessels is frequently 0.78, whereas that of our fastest warships is only 0.5, and of our large modern passenger steamers 0.55. As already stated, in the ship whose coefficient is 0.78 any increase of power produces very little gain in speed, and if such a ship were fitted with engines and boilers of the same size and developing the same power as those of a 20-knot Atlantic greyhound, the increase in speed would be very insignificant, but the disturbance in its immediate neighborhood would be very great; in fact, if any vessel is driven beyond a speed for which her form is suitable, she produces waves[11] both numerous and high, as may be seen by reference to the illustration of H. B. M. S. Impérieuse being driven at her full speed of 17¹⁄₄ knots when laden much deeper than the designed draft [[p. 64]].

As before mentioned, when speaking of the experiment with a thin sheet of metal, the resistance to passage through the water increases very rapidly with the increase of speed, and careful observation has shown that such increase is proportionate to the square of the speed, so that an immersed body has four times the resistance when moving at twice the speed, and since it will travel double the distance in the same time the power required is eight times as great; that is, the power needed to propel a ship varies as the cube of the speed. It was also discovered that the power varied with the cube root of the square of the displacement; although more correct modern experiment has shown that this variation is not strictly true, it is sufficient for the purpose of this article to assume that it is so.

The Impérieuse going at Full Speed. (From an instantaneous photograph.)

[Larger image] (191 kB)

The North German Lloyd Steamer Kaiser Wilhelm II.

[Larger image] (219 kB)

The indicated horse-power [called I. H.-P. for brevity], or that power developed by the engine as registered by the indicator, is not all usefully applied to the propulsion of a steamship. A large portion of it is used up in overcoming the resistance of the engine itself, as well as the necessary adjuncts of it, amounting often to thirteen per cent. Then, again, another portion is absorbed in overcoming the resistance of the propeller and its shafting; and as at present there is no accurate method of determining these portions, the net effective horse-power, or that usefully employed in propelling the vessel, can only be guessed at, or approximated to by calculations more or less abstruse. It is, however, the gross, or indicated, horse-power that has to be obtained and paid for, and that, therefore, is the element that has to be considered in practice; so that, from this consideration alone, any great increase in speed has to be very dearly paid for. Moreover, as has already been said, to admit of a higher speed the ship must be made much finer, which means that her carrying capacity for cargo and fuel has to be decreased; besides which the greater engine-power will add to the dead load, thus still further diminishing the vessel’s capability for carrying. This may be better understood by taking a steamer of moderate dimensions, and such as for many years was deemed sufficient for the Atlantic trade, say 300 feet long, 40 feet beam, and having a draft of water of 20 feet. Such a craft would have a displacement of about 4,800 tons, could steam 10 knots per hour with 1,000 I. H.-P., and carry 3,000 tons of cargo, fuel, stores, and equipment. Taking the distance to be steamed at 3,200 knots, and the consumption of fuel at 4 pounds per I. H.-P., it will be seen that the net consumption of coal is 571 tons; adding to this twenty-five per cent. for contingencies of weather, for raising steam, cooking, heating, etc., the ship would have to leave port with 714 tons of fuel and rather less than 2,300 tons of cargo, stores, etc., on board. If a steamship of similar dimensions were required to do the voyage at 15 knots, her design would have to be such that the displacement would not be more than 4,100 tons, the I. H.-P. at least 3,400, and the amount of fuel stored at the commencement of the voyage 1,618 tons. The machinery would probably have to be at least 400 tons heavier, so that the capacity for cargo, stores, etc., would now be reduced to 1,000 tons. The cost, too, would be greatly increased on account of the extra engine-power, and the expense in fuel would be more than doubled. The engine-and boiler-room staff would likewise be materially increased, while the earning power of the vessel would be less than half.

Seeing, however, that the power required for a certain speed varies with the cube root of the displacement squared, the proportion of power to tonnage will decrease considerably with the increase in the size, so that if, instead of the steamer above referred to of 4,100 tons, one were taken of 8,200 tons, the I. H.-P. for 15 knots—all other things remaining the same—would be very little more than 5,000; i. e., with a ship of twice the size the increase of engine-power is only forty-seven per cent. The carrying capacity and consequent earning power of such a boat is immeasurably more than that of the small one. The larger ship will, moreover, make better passages, and generally be much more economical in working, as the officers and crew will not very largely exceed that of the smaller vessel.

It was, however, owing to the more economical engine that advances in speed were rendered possible, and this is seen by referring back to the original ship, and supposing that instead of engines burning 4 pounds of coal per I. H.-P., it had ones consuming only 2¹⁄₂ pounds per I. H.-P. in which case the expenditure on the voyage would be reduced from 1,618 tons to 1,004 tons; so that 600 tons more cargo could be taken and the cost of 600 tons of fuel per voyage saved. This was actually the case on the substitution of compound for old-fashioned low-pressure jet-injection engines fitted to the Cunard Company’s steamers as late as 1862, when their largest, fastest, and most improved steamer, the Scotia, was put on the service. But it was not until many years after the advent of the Scotia that such economic engines were in general use on the Atlantic, and it was only in 1874-75, when the Inman Company and White Star Company placed steamships having these engines in competition with the old-fashioned ones, that the day of the latter was gone.

Passenger Steamer Princesse Henriette at Full Speed—24¹⁄₂ miles per hour.
(Built by William Denny & Co., Dumbarton.)

[Larger image] (184 kB)

The first pioneers of steamship construction were apparently satisfied to find their efforts result in some motion, for we find exultation rather than disappointment in the accounts extant of Patrick Miller’s experiments with a small steamer on a Scotch canal in the year 1787; and later, in 1789, when, with a larger and better boat and machinery, he was able to obtain a speed of 7 miles an hour (equivalent to 6.07 knots[12]) it was deemed a great achievement; later still, in 1807, Fulton’s first attempt with the steamship Clermont, in a run from Albany to New York and back, the average speed was only 5 miles an hour. In those days so long as a steamer was able to face wind and tide she was deemed a success. The competition of steamers in early times (when there was any) was with sailing ships, or with land conveyances whose maximum rate would be 10 miles an hour, and that effected at considerable cost in horse-flesh. It is, however, true that sailing ships did then, and can now, sail, under favorable circumstances, at very much higher rates than we have just mentioned, and even as much as 15 knots can be obtained with one of fine lines with a favoring wind; but a sailing ship is not always free to traverse the shortest distance from port to port, and even when wind and weather permit of this, the average speed falls far below 15 knots with the best-designed vessels; hence if a steamer could do 9 knots she would make shorter passages than any sailer; and from the nearer approach to uniformity in the time occupied, passengers were attracted to steamships, and the passenger sailing vessel, except for very long voyages, became a thing of the past.

The Clermont, constructed by Fulton in America, and supplied by him with engines made by Messrs. Bolton & Watt, in Birmingham, England, was 133 feet long, 18 feet broad, and 9 feet deep; the engine had a diameter of piston of 24 inches with 4 feet stroke; she took 32 hours performing the voyage from Albany to New York, and 30 hours in returning—the journey can now be done in one-fourth that time. In 1815 the steamship Caledonia was placed on the service between Margate (England) and Holland, and her speed did not exceed 7¹⁄₂ knots per hour. Steamships now perform the passage at double that speed, and the most recent additions to the continental service between Dover and Ostend are steamboats that can travel at nearly three times the pace of the Caledonia. The Princesse Henriette is 300 feet long, 38 feet broad, and 13 feet 6 inches deep, and has engines whose cylinders are 58 inches and 104 inches diameter, with a stroke of 6 feet, and on page [69] is shown a drawing of her, taken from a photograph when travelling on her trial trip at a speed of 21.28 knots, or 24¹⁄₂ statute miles per hour.

Engines of the Comet.

The first steamboat constructed and used for serviceable purposes in Great Britain was the Comet, built by Henry Bell, on the Clyde, in 1812. She was only 40 feet long, 10 feet broad, of 24 tons measurement; her engines were of 4 nominal horse-power, and of very curious design, as shown by the engraving on page [70]; her speed under favorable conditions was only 5 miles an hour. She continued to ply for some years between Glasgow and Greenock, and was doubtless a very great convenience to the public at that time; but the advance that has been made in the construction of river steamers for service on the Clyde and its estuary is seen by reference to the illustration of the steamer Duchess of Hamilton, whose dimensions are length, 250 feet; breadth, 30 feet; and depth 10 feet; her engines having cylinders 34¹⁄₂ inches and 60 inches diameter, with a piston-stroke of 5 feet. Her speed is over 18 knots, or very nearly 21 miles per hour, at which rate she was going when the photograph was taken.

Passenger Steamer Duchess of Hamilton at Full Speed—21 miles per hour.
(Built for service on the Clyde.)

[Larger image] (122 kB)

The paddle steamer Puritan is another example of the very great progress made since the days of the Clermont, and is also a marked advance in many ways on the Bristol, which was the wonder of a few years ago; and another noted case is the steamship Columba, built for service on the Clyde.

The first steamships to cross the Atlantic from England were the Sirius and Great Western,[13] names never to be forgotten. The Great Western was built at Bristol, England, and completed in the year 1838. She was 212 feet long, 35 feet 4 inches broad, and 1,340 tons burden, and had engines of 450 nominal horse-power. She did the voyage from Bristol to New York in 15 days. The time of her quickest passage, given in the table on page 80 as 10 days, 10 hours, and 15 minutes, is not the actual passage, but is the equivalent of a passage reckoned from Queenstown to Sandy Hook.

Passenger Steamer Columba at Full Speed—21 miles per hour.
(Built for Clyde passenger service.)

[Larger image] (194 kB)

In 1840 the Britannia, the first of the Cunard steamers, was put on her station. She was a paddle boat, built of wood, and was 207 feet long. Her speed on service was about eight and a half knots, so that she did the passage in 15 days.

Ten years later the now renowned Inman Line commenced with an iron screw steamer named the City of Glasgow, of 1,600 tons burden, and 350 nominal horse-power, a new departure in both ship and propeller.

It was not until 1855 that the Cunard Company built an iron steamer, and they continued to employ paddle boats until 1862, when the celebrated steamship Scotia was completed.

It is interesting to note, in passing, that the average length of voyage in the Cunard Line, in 1856, from Liverpool to New York was 12.676 days, and from New York to Liverpool 11.036 days.

Thirteen years after the Scotia was built the White Star Company placed on the station two vessels that were very great advances on anything then existing; they were marvels of the ship-builder’s and marine engineer’s skill, and even to-day hold their own in many respects with the most modern ships. That these should compete successfully, and eventually drive off the line such a ship as the Scotia is easily seen by reference to contrasted particulars in the table on [page 78]. The Britannic is a screw vessel 455 feet long; her I. H.-P. on trial trip was 5,400, and at sea is about four thousand nine hundred, or practically the same as that of the Scotia; but the speed on trial was nearly two knots more, and the average of eleven voyages gives a mean of 15.045 knots per hour; while as recently as September, 1890, in her old age, she traversed the Atlantic from New York to Queenstown at an average speed of 16.08 knots. She has compound engines with 4 cylinders, the two high-pressure being each 48 inches diameter, and the two low-pressure each 83 inches diameter, with a stroke of 5 feet. Her consumption of coal will be about one hundred and thirty tons per day, and on leaving port she will have on board, say 1,300 tons of fuel. She can carry a considerable cargo. The weight of her machinery is 1,112 tons. She and her sister ship, the Germanic, were in their day admitted to be all that could be desired; almost as much as was physically possible, and certainly as much as was then possible commercially.

Since then, however, many changes have taken place that will be alluded to later on, so that to-day we have numerous boats running on the Atlantic at an average speed of 19 to 20 knots, with a reputation for being commercial successes as well as triumphs of engineering skill.

The most recent and noteworthy of these are the steamships Teutonic and Majestic, owned by the same enterprising gentlemen, and constructed by the same famed builders as the Britannic and Germanic; and the City of Paris and City of New York, sailing under the same house flag as the steamship City of Berlin, which was a worthy competitor of the Britannic.

The Majestic is a twin-screw steamer of 9,851 tons gross, 565 feet long (or 110 feet more than the Britannic). Each screw is driven by a set of triple-expansion engines. Her consumption of fuel is about two hundred and ninety tons per day, while on leaving port she will have on board about two thousand four hundred tons of coal. Her I. H.-P. on trial trip was 17,000. Her best speed on service is a mean of 20.18, and taking the mean of ten voyages it is 19.72 knots. A picture of the ship, taken while afloat on the Mersey, is shown on page [75].

The City of Paris is 10,499 tons gross register, and is 527 feet long: she also is a twin-screw vessel. It will be observed by comparison with the Majestic [see table, p. [78]] that the City of Paris is the larger ship, although she is 38 feet shorter, her extra beam of 5.4 feet giving her this advantage. Her speed with 20,100 I. H.-P. is 21.952 knots, her best run on service being 20.01 knots; and her daily consumption of coal is about three hundred and twenty tons, which necessitates her leaving port with over two thousand seven hundred tons of fuel on board for the trip.

The White Star Steamer Majestic.

[Larger image] (192 kB)

Previous to the advent of these vessels the Cunard Company’s steamships Etruria and Umbria were the fastest boats on the Atlantic, and their performances are highly creditable to all concerned. The best voyage from Queenstown to Sandy Hook by the Etruria was done in 6 days, 5 hours, 3 minutes, and the best from Sandy Hook to Queenstown in 6 days, 7 hours, 32 minutes, and the average in 1886 was about 6 days, 15 hours, as compared with the 11 days, 19 hours of 1856. The average of the Britannic for ten years was 8 days, 9 hours, 36 minutes, Queenstown to New York; and 8 days, 1 hour, 48 minutes, New York to Queenstown.

Comparative Table of Atlantic Steamships and their Speeds.

It may well be asked how what seemed to be an impossibility in 1876 has been achieved so successfully in 1890, and it is perhaps less interesting to note the changed conditions than the causes that have produced them. In the very early days of steam navigation the engines were substantially those used for pumping and other purposes on land. Had the genius of Trevithick exerted itself in the direction of improvements in ship propulsion as much as it did in abortive efforts to make the locomotive a success, there is no doubt we should have had fast passenger steamers before we had railway trains; and had not the prejudice of Watt hung over the engineering world as a cloud which obscured the clear light of science, some other engineer would have accomplished the same result. It is disappointing to find that a man of Watt’s genius and reputation should have attempted to damp the ardor of men like Symington and Miller by predicting failure for an engine when applied to marine propulsion, and by threatening the pains and penalties of the law for infringement of patent should those enterprising geniuses disprove his predictions. There can be no doubt that the statement from a man of his position, that Trevithick and others who were experimenting, as well as working, with steam of high pressure deserved hanging for their diabolical inventions, would have great effect on the engineering world, then in its infancy; and the few accidents that in later years occurred on steamboats, through the crass ignorance or the reckless negligence of those placed in charge, recalled to the mind of another generation the words of Watt, and made them doubly impressive as well as deterrent to further progress. Even in our own days the use of steam at such pressures as have enabled the present wonderful monuments of mechanical skill to be commercial successes has been animadverted upon, and prophesied about, and openly denounced, and it is only those who are engaged in this pioneer warfare who know how depressing and discouraging such language is, or who appreciate the great responsibility taken in advancing into the unknown—that is, unknown to the world at large. Moreover, the body of every nation is more or less conservative and slow to comprehend, much less to appreciate, new inventions or new forms of old inventions. Hence, no doubt, it was that an enterprising company like that presided over by Sir Samuel Cunard should refrain from building its ships of the superior material, iron, and adhere to the inferior propeller, the paddle.

The Inman Line Steamer City of Paris.

[Larger image] (144 kB)

The paddle-wheel was obviously the first instrument accepted by the early engineers as a means of propulsion. Long after the experiment of H. B. M. S. Rattler had demonstrated the contrary, the public faith in the visible wheel was greater in reality and more sincere than that in the invisible screw; and it is probable that it was more the question of cost than anything else that gained the victory for the screw for ocean and general service. The paddle engine is in itself heavier and occupies more room than the screw engine; it is as a rule more expensive per I. H.-P.; and in wear and tear—especially of the propeller itself—it far exceeds the screw. It occupies the best part of the ship, and its position is not a matter of choice, as with the screw engine, but is, of necessity, at or near the middle of the ship.[14] It is evident that a paddle steamer must require more room, and that in moving among ships or other obstructions the liability to damage the propeller is greater than with the screw steamer, and in the case of a long voyage the paddle generally worked at a disadvantage, as at the commencement it was too deeply immersed, and at the end not immersed enough for efficient working. If the sails were set so as to steady the vessel, or if set in sufficient quantity to be of any use in quickening the speed, she was inclined until the lee wheel was “buried” and the “weather” wheel doing very little work; besides there was a general tendency on the part of the ship to turn round, which had to be counterbalanced by the rudder. The race of water from the wheels past the ship being at a high velocity, and raised above the normal level, causes a resistance to the ship beyond that due to her passage through the water, as in the case of a screw ship. On the other hand, the paddle boat is more readily got into motion and her speed more rapidly arrested than is the case with the screw steamer; and it is claimed for the paddle-wheel—although the foundation for such a claim is rather nebulous—that when the engines are working at full speed the ship is prevented from the excessive rolling observable with a screw vessel. But against this it must not be forgotten that the paddle engine is far more trying to the structure of the ship, on account of the great weight of the wheels being taken on the sides of the hull, as well as from the effort of the wheels in propelling being applied at the same place. Then there is the additional danger, and that not a remote one, that in case of the shaft breaking and a wheel falling clear of the ship, she would upset. An accident of this kind has occurred more than once, but there is no record of the actual result being so calamitous as just stated, owing to other fortuitous circumstances. That which retains the paddle-wheel in favor to-day, and renders it a necessity in spite of argument or prejudice, is the fact that the screw requires that the draft of the ship shall not be less than its own diameter, whereas in the largest paddle boats a dip of wheel of six feet is generally sufficient. Hence it is that nearly all fast steamers plying on rivers or shallow estuaries, and channel steamers running to ports where there is little water when the tide is low, are of necessity paddle-wheel. By employing two screws (one on each side instead of one amidships) the draft of water can be reduced by at least thirty per cent. Likewise, by increasing the number of revolutions smaller screws will do, and the draft of water may be still less, so that some thirty years ago, on the introduction of twin-screws, there were soon many ships built for services that had hitherto been monopolized by paddle boats;[15] and to-day, when there is a demand for higher speed and more power, and where paddle-wheels are not admissible, three screws are being employed. Ships have also been employed with four screws, viz., two at the bow and two at the stern, and, for the purpose for which they were required, answered very well indeed; but the worst possible place for a propeller is obviously at the bow, and therefore in these ships the bow screws were not very efficient, but they undoubtedly added somewhat to the power of the ship. In the same way some tug-boats have been fitted with a screw at each end.

All attempts at propulsion with internal propellers—that is, by turbine wheels, pulsometers, ejectors, or by pumps—have failed in consequence of the great friction set up by the water in its rapid passage through the pipes from and to the sea; the motion must be rapid owing to the size of the pipes being necessarily restricted. The best experiment with this kind of propeller was made on a costly scale by the British Admiralty in 1866, when they fitted the iron-clad gun-boat Waterwitch, of 1,200 tons displacement, with a Ruthven’s hydraulic propeller, consisting of a horizontal turbine wheel drawing its water through the bottom of the ship and discharging it fore-and-aft-ways at each side, and driven by an engine of 160 nominal horse-power; and although this vessel was only 162 feet long, 32 feet broad, and drew 11 feet 4 inches of water, her speed was only a little over 9 knots, with an indicated horse-power of 801. The speed co-efficients whereby her performances could be compared with that of other ships were most disappointing.

The Twin Screws of the City of New York