CHAPTER VIII._Modern shipbuilding and the men engaged in it

THE PRODUCTION OF LARGE STEAMSHIPS.

List of Vessels over 4000 Tons Presently or at one time Afloat—

The Years in which the Production of Large Steamships have been

Greatest—The Individual Share of the several Districts in Producing

Large Steamships 198

APPENDIX.

CALCULATING INSTRUMENTS.

Fuller’s Spiral Slide rule—Amsler’s Polar Fixed-scale Planimeter—

Amsler’s Proportional or Variable-scale Planimeter—Amsler’s

Mechanical Integrator 207

PORTRAITS AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES.

JOHN BURNS, _facing Page_ 2

NATHANIEL DUNLOP, ” ” 12

THOMAS HENDERSON, ” ” 20

WILLIAM PEARCE, ” ” 30

JAMES ANDERSON, ” ” 36

ALEXANDER C. KIRK, ” ” 44

BENJAMIN MARTELL, ” ” 60

WILLIAM H. WHITE, ” ” 86

JOHN INGLIS, JUN., ” ” 106

SIR EDWARD J. REED, ” ” 108

PROF. FRANCIS ELGAR, ” ” 114

WILLIAM DENNY, ” ” 118

WILLIAM JOHN, ” ” 124

CHARLES MARK PALMER, ” ” 172

JAMES LAING, ” ” 178

VIEWS OF NOTABLE STEAMSHIPS.

S.S. “City of Rome,” Anchor Line, _Frontispiece_.

S.S. “Umbria,” Cunard Line, _facing Page_ 6

S.S. “Austral,” Anchor Line, ” ” 36

ERRATA.

PAGE 11.—Thirteenth line from top: for 1883 read 1884.

PAGE 81.—Fourth line from top: for “a single trial” read “one or

two trials.”

PAGE 163.—Fourth line from top: for 1884 read 1845.

PAGE 187.—Third line from top: for “fluctuations” read “fluctuation.”

PAGE 200.—Dimensions of “City of Rome”: for 546 by 52 by 58¾ read

546 by 52 by 38¾.

“Into a ship of the line man has put as much of his human patience,

common sense, forethought, experimental philosophy, self-control

habits of order and obedience, thoroughly wrought handwork,

defiance of brute elements, careless courage, careful patriotism,

and calm expectation of the judgment of God, as can well be put

into a space 300 feet long; by 80 feet broad.”—_Ruskin._

“If any body of men have just cause to feel pride in their calling,

and in the fruits of their labour, shipbuilders have. If we

look at the magnitude of the operations of building, launching,

engining, and completing a modern passenger ship of the first

rank, and regard the multiplicity of the arrangements and beauty

of finish now expected, and then think this structure has to brave

the elements, make regular passages, convey thousands of human

souls, and tens of thousands of tons of merchandise every year

across the ocean, in storm or calm, we cannot but feel that they

are occupied in useful human labour. But more than this, there

is a public sentiment surrounding ships that no other mechanical

structures can command. Beautiful churches, grand buildings, huge

structures of all kinds have a certain interest pertaining to them,

but it is different in kind from that which surrounds a ship.

The former are fixed, immovable, inert; the ship is here to-day

and gone to-morrow, building up a history from day to day with

a reputation as sensitive as a woman’s to calumny, and like her

consequently often a bone of contention as well as an object of

admiration.”—_William John._

MODERN SHIPBUILDING.

CHAPTER I.

RECENT PROGRESS IN STEAMSHIP CONSTRUCTION.

The achievements in shipbuilding and marine engineering within recent

years may be said to borrow lustre from one particular feat of past

times. The _Great Eastern_ undoubtedly furnished, in large measure,

the experience that has recently been causing so great a change in

the tonnage of our mercantile marine. Commercially, as is well known,

that huge vessel—“Brunel’s grand audacity,” she has been called—has

all along proved a lamentable failure. It has been stated on good

authority that between 1853—the year in which the contract for her

was entered into—and the year 1869, no less than one million sterling

had been lost upon her by the various proprietors attempting to

work her. Financially, indeed, she may be said to have proved the

“Devastation” of the mercantile marine. Although at various times in

her long life-time she has unquestionably done most useful service in

sub-marine cable-laying—service, indeed, which, but for her, could

not well have been accomplished—these times of usefulness have been

far outbalanced by her long periods of inactivity.

Apart from commercial considerations, however, this premier leviathan

still stands out as a wonder and pattern of naval construction.

In her admirably-conceived and splendidly-wrought structural

arrangements—due to the joint labours of the late Mr I. K. Brunel

and Mr J. Scott Russell—she possesses as successful an embodiment

of the dual quality of “strength-with-lightness” as can be found in

any subsequent ocean-going merchant ship. She was, if not the first,

certainly the greatest embodiment of the longitudinal system of

construction, and in virtue of this, as well as of her phenomenal

proportions, she represents, alone, more of the intrepidity and skill

essential to thorough progress, than are exhibited by combined hosts

of the “departures” of recent times.

Despite the far-reaching views of the eminent designer, those

changes which have since taken place in the essential conditions for

successful ocean navigation eluded his vision. Owing to the opening

of coal mines in almost all parts of the world, it is now no longer

necessary nor desirable that a steamer should be capable of carrying

coals for a return voyage, either from India or Australia—this being

the dominant and regulating condition in the _Great Eastern’s_

design. Further, the improvements in marine engineering, represented

by the greater possible economies in coal consumption and the

fuller utilization of steam, which have since been effected, have

rendered the great ship inefficient and obsolete. In short, Brunel

and his financial supporters were ahead of their time, and failed to

appreciate the law of progress, now better understood—“invention must

wait on experience.”

The urgent demands of our broader civilisation, improvements in

navigation, the spread of population in new colonies and over wider

continents, and, above all, the fresh accessions of experience and

invention, are forces which now impel shipowners to increase the

dimensions of their vessels, and shipbuilders to carry out the work.

Each year the contrasts as to dimensions between the first leviathan

and her later sister grow less and less. The completion within the

past few years of such monster merchant ships as the _Servia_, the

_City of Rome_, the _Alaska_, and the _Oregon_, and the forward state

of the _Etruria_ and _Umbria_, two remarkable steamships, building

on the Clyde for the Cunard Company, constitute an epoch in the

history of our mercantile marine, and give colourable justification

to the belief sometimes expressed, that the proportions of the _Great

Eastern_ will in time be surpassed.

The feasibility—in a scientific sense—of ships growing in proportions

commensurate with the growth of commerce and traffic, has often

been commented upon. The whole tendency of our time is towards the

aggregation of effort: the massing of capital and labour. A

vessel of five thousand tons can be built cheaper than five vessels

of one thousand tons. In the manning and working of ships there is

a still more striking economy, _e.g._, one captain instead of five,

and so on throughout the staff of officers, engineers, stewards, and

crew. Not only so, but long ships can be propelled at greater speeds

than short ones, the whole conditions of construction, engines, and

propellers being considered. Mr Robert Duncan, in his presidential

address before the Society of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Glasgow

in 1872, declared:—“Looking forward one generation, and measuring

the future by the past, I think it is not problematical that we

shall see steamers of eight hundred feet long the ferryboats of two

oceans, with America for their central station, and Europe and Asia

for their working termini.” Even since that was uttered, eleven years

ago, we have approached, in solid practice, the limit thus laid down,

by 150 feet at least. Three years previous to Mr Duncan’s address,

vessels exceeding four hundred feet were not afloat, with the notable

exception already referred to; now, there are few merchant fleets of

any pretensions engaged in ocean traffic which do not include vessels

over or approaching four hundred feet, and it is even no great boast

that vessels close on six hundred feet are afloat and in active

service.

As better illustrating the growth in dimensions of merchant

steamships, the Figs. on the following page may prove interesting.

They show, all to the same scale, a number of representative steam

vessels from the _Comet_ downwards.

[Illustration: “COMET,” 1812.

“ELIZABETH,” 1813.

“INDUSTRY,” 1814.

“CALEDONIA,” 1815.

“ROB ROY,” 1818.

“JAMES WATT,” 1822.

“SIRIUS,” 1837.

“GREAT BRITAIN,” 1843.

“CITY OF GLASGOW,” 1850.

“GREAT EASTERN,” 1857.

“SCOTIA,” 1861.

“COLUMBA,” 1878.

“ARIZONA,” 1876.

“SERVIA,” 1881.

“CITY OF ROME,” 1881.]

Along with the change or evolution in the sizes and types of merchant

vessels, important modifications in their structural arrangement have

of late years been effected, and it is to the constant progress being

made in these matters—to the skill and intrepidity which are brought

to bear on their execution, and to the readiness with which our

shipowners recognise their importance and value—that the maintenance

of our mercantile supremacy is largely owing. An American journal,

writing a few years ago on this subject—perhaps with more of taunt

for the conceit and self-sufficiency evinced by its own country than

of adulation for the ability and enterprise displayed by ours—said:—

“In the whole world there is no place whatever that can in any

degree compare with the Clyde for either extent or quality of

steamship building; and at this moment an indisputable verification

can be adduced, for between American and European ports there are

at the present time something like a score of steam navigation

companies, doing an immense passenger and carrying trade, with

vessels of great power and magnificence, and notwithstanding the

variety of trade nationalities, at least two-thirds of the vessels

employed were built and equipped on the Clyde; and more—unless

there has very recently been a change, there is not an American

steam company in the whole Atlantic trade. With a run of about

fifty years to try it, and after many unsuccessful attempts, the

Americans have utterly failed to sustain permanent competition.

All the British companies have prospered beyond any probable

anticipation clothed with reason. The Cunard Company, starting

with four vessels some forty years ago, have now twenty times that

number. What is this something which enables Europeans to so far

outstrip the Americans in a competitive traffic so as to exclude

them from the merest show in the largest steam trade in the world?

A baneful, overweening, and ignorantly selfish conceit invariably

leads to disastrous results, and a nation given over to the

fulmination of concentrated boast cannot fail to be suffocated with

foolery of its own making.”

This is doubtless the outcome of a vicious antipathy—natural in the

circumstances—to those stringent and over-reaching laws which forbid

that ships built away from America shall sail under the American

flag, or enjoy the pertaining privileges. American shipbuilders thus

secured from the encroaches of foreign competition, have enjoyed

their own pace, but at too great a sacrifice. Preferring to take

the material most at hand, the manipulation of which they well

understood, they have allowed their wood age to be dove-tailed thirty

years into our iron one, with the other result that America now

occupies as unimportant a place in the traffic of the sea, as the

above quotation indicates.

Evidences are not wanting, however, to show that America is at least

endeavouring, in some respects, to be abreast of the times, and that

she has brought herself to acknowledge and follow the lead of this

country. In this connection, the four new vessels presently being

constructed for the U.S. Navy may be shortly referred to. The vessels

comprise three cruisers and one despatch boat, all of which are being

built by Mr John Roach, of Chester, Pa., the material employed in

their construction being mild steel of American manufacture. Twin

screws will be employed for the propulsion of the largest vessel—the

_Chicago_—which is to be 315 feet long between perpendiculars, 48

feet beam, and 34 feet 9 inches moulded depth to spar deck. The other

vessels are the _Boston_ and the _Atalanta_, single screw cruisers of

270 feet length; and the _Dolphin_, single screw despatch boat, of

250 feet length and high speed.

In almost every feature except machinery these new American naval

vessels strongly resemble Government vessels of recent British build,

a circumstance for which there is little difficulty in accounting,

as it is well known the naval authorities in the States have within

recent times been recruited by young American naval architects

educated in our Naval College at Greenwich, and consequently steeped

in British naval practice. This and other facts, such as the visit

of a technical commissioner of the States’ navy, two years ago, to

our naval and mercantile shipyards—upon which he has since fully

reported—leave one in no doubt as to the source of coincidence in

design and structure.

[Illustration: S.S. UMBRIA.—CUNARD LINE.

LENGTH, 500 ft. 0 in.

BREADTH, 57 ft. 0 in.

DEPTH, 40 ft. 0 in.

TONNAGE (GROSS), 7,718 tons.

BUILT BY MESSRS ELDER & CO., 1884.]

The subject of America’s position as a shipbuilding and shipowning

country has involved reference to wood shipbuilding, but to revert

at any length to this topic in a work dealing with modern progress

in British shipbuilding, the bulk of which is written of and for

industrial and commercial centres where wood shipbuilding has been

long entirely tabooed, is quite unnecessary. Doubtless, however,

the amount of wood and composite building still carried on in the

minor seaports of the United Kingdom, and in several of the British

possessions, is of sufficient importance to demand some reference. As

the present position of affairs in this connection is briefly and

forcibly illustrated by statistics compiled and issued by the British

Iron Trade Association, two tables taken from this source may be

given, the subject thereafter being finally departed from:—

_Tonnage of Vessels constructed and registered in the United

Kingdom of Iron, Steel, and Wood respectively, in each of the years

1879 to 1883, with Percentage of Total Tonnage constructed in Iron

and Steel._

+-------+-------------------------------------------------------+

| | Gross Tonnage of Vessels built of |

| +-------------------+---------------+-------------------+

+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+

| 1879 | 484,636 | 26,186 | 458,450 |

| 1880 | 525,568 | 19,938 | 505,630 |

| 1881 | 730,686 | 18,107 | 712,579 |

| 1882 | 913,519 | 14,850 | 898,669 |

| 1883 | 1,012,735 | 15,202 | 997,533 |

+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+

|Totals,| 3,667,144 | 94,283 | 3,572,861 |

+-------+-------------------+---------------+-------------------+

_Tonnage of Wooden Vessels registered in the United Kingdom which

were Lost, Broken up, &c., during each of the years 1879 to 1883,

with Tonnage of Wooden Vessels built and registered in the United

Kingdom during the same period._

+-------+----------------------------+-------------------+

| | Tonnage of Wooden Vessels. | Excess of Vessels |

| Year. +-------------+--------------+ lost over those |

+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+

| 1879 | 149,828 | 26,186 | 123,642 |

| 1880 | 173,065 | 19,938 | 153,127 |

| 1881 | 170,283 | 18,107 | 152,176 |

| 1882 | 166,809 | 14,850 | 151,959 |

| 1883 | 144,138 | 15,202 | 128,936 |

+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+

|Totals,| 804,123 | 94,283 | 709,840 |

+-------+-------------+--------------+-------------------+

Whence it appears that while 709,840 tons of the 1,779,112 tons

of ships removed from the register during the last five years

were wooden vessels, only 94,283 tons of the 3,667,144 tons built

and registered in the United Kingdom during the same period

were constructed of that material. In other words, wooden ships

represent 45 per cent. of the total losses, while they only

represent 2·5 per cent. of the total tonnage built and added to the

Just as the introduction or general adoption of the compound

engine marked an epoch in the history of shipbuilding and marine

propulsion, so now the introduction of “mild steel” or “ingot

iron” as a material for shipbuilding, together with the more

extended adoption of water ballast, and the rapid development of the

continuous-cellular system of construction, may be said to constitute

a fresh starting point in the history of the industry.

Although the introduction of steel as a material for shipbuilding

dates at least as far back as 1860, its use has been but partial

or occasional until within very recent times. The uncertainty as

to quality, the frequent great disparity between pieces cut from

the same plate, and the special care needed in the manipulation,

prevented its general adoption. With the highly-improved “mild

steel,” however, first manufactured in France, and applied to

shipbuilding purposes there about nine years ago, and subsequently

introduced into this country, began the more extended adoption of

steel, which every day, or with every accession to experience, is

displacing iron.

The facts relating to the introduction into this country of mild

steel for shipbuilding purposes, may be briefly recounted. In the

latter end of 1874, Admiral Sir W. Houston Stewart, Controller of

the British Navy, and Mr N. Barnaby, Director of Naval Construction,

availed themselves of the opportunity to observe and study the use

of steel in the French dockyards of Lorient and Brest, where three

first-class armour-plated vessels were then being built of steel

throughout, supplied from the works at Creusot and Terrenoire. Mr

Barnaby, at the meetings of the Institution of Naval Architects in

March following, gave an account of his observations during this

visit, and pointed out clearly and precisely to the steel-makers of

Great Britain all the indispensable conditions which would have to be

met and satisfied by steel for shipbuilding, so that it could be used

with confidence in the construction of the largest vessels. Before

the end of 1875, the Landore-Siemens Company was enabled to fulfil

these conditions, and the Admiralty contracted with them to supply

the plates and angles necessary for the construction of two cruisers

of high speed—the _Iris_ and the _Mercury_. The material involved

in this contract was steel obtained by the Siemens-Martin process.

Shortly after this the Bolton Steel Company was in its turn able to

produce by the Bessemer process plates and angles, satisfying all

the requisite conditions. The Steel Company of Scotland, Butterly

Company, and other important works, also entered into the same

business, and operations are still going on in various parts of the

country connected with the formation of new works, and the perfecting

of other processes.

The steel furnished by these different works, subjected as it

has been to systematic and severe tests continually applied, is

now possessed of the qualities of ductility, malleability, and

homogeneity, which render its employment in shipbuilding not only

permissible but highly desirable. Its good and reliable qualities

have been admitted by the Constructors of the Navy, the Officers of

the Board of Trade, of Lloyd’s, and of the Liverpool Registries, as

well as by all the most competent authorities. The experience of all

who have practical dealings with the material in the shipyard is

that it entirely satisfies—even more than iron—all the requirements

of easy manipulation. The confidence with which it can be relied on,

as to its certain and uniform qualities, places it on a much higher

level than the steel formerly manufactured; and its superiority over

the best wrought-iron as regards strength and ductility renders it a

highly preferable material.

While doubt exists, however, as to the adoption of steel for

shipbuilding being commercially advantageous; there must be hesitancy

on the part of shipowners and others concerned. Although, since its

introduction, mild steel has been greatly reduced in price, the

first cost of a steel ship is still somewhat over that of an iron

one, even after the reduction in weight of material is made, which

the superiority of steel permits of. It has been shown that, about

two years ago, a spar-decked steamer, of 4,000 tons gross, built in

steel, as against a similar vessel built in iron, entailed an excess

in cost of £3,570. The advantages, however, which accrue from the

change, both immediate and in the long run, make the gain clear and

considerable. Steel ships have been built with scantlings reduced

one-fourth or one-third, and in some early cases even _one-half_,

from what would have been considered requisite had iron been

employed. Some authorities, not unnaturally, questioned the wisdom

of accrediting steel with all the qualities which make such sweeping

reductions justifiable. Except in vessels for river or passenger

service, however, this is much in advance of the reductions obtained

in ordinary modern practice.

The reductions allowed in vessels built to Lloyd’s requirements—and

it cannot be urged that this society is too reckless in concessions

of this nature—are 20 per cent. in scantling, and 18 per cent. in

weight. As it is impossible to adjust the scantlings of material

to take the full advantage of these reductions, and further, as

allowance has to be made for extra weight due to the continued use

of iron in vessels of steel—for purposes not essential to structural

character—the average weight-saving effected in practice is about

13 to 14 per cent. This represents, in the finished vessel, a clear

increase of at least 13 per cent. in dead-weight carrying power. The

gain obtained in general practice has been otherwise stated on good

authority as 7 to 7½ per cent. of the gross tonnage.

In trades where there is constancy of dead-weight cargoes, this

increase in dead-weight carrying power should speedily recoup

the owners for extra first cost, and in the life-time of vessels

generally, a clear pecuniary gain should result. In trades, however,

where the cargo consists of measurement goods, the advantages are not

so decided, for it may sometimes happen that before vessels have been

loaded to their maximum draught the limits of stowage will have been

reached. Even here, however, the steel vessel has the advantage of

her iron rival; her hull is 13 per cent. lighter, and consequently

may be propelled at a given speed with much less expenditure

of power, and has the further advantage—often a very important

one—of a shallower draught. This latter consideration alone, in a

service where every iota of such saving counts, has influenced many

shipowners to adopt the steel.

As the manufacture of mild steel progresses and extends, the

assimilation of the rival materials as to cost is sure to follow.

Already very great advances have been made towards this end, the

fact being abundantly evidenced by the greatly increased number of

steel ships on hand, and by the establishment of new works, and

transformation of old, for the better production of the new material.

In 1877 mild steel was about twice as costly as the iron in common

use. The sources of supply, however, were then comparatively few, and

the thorough and severe testing to which the new material had to be

subjected, necessarily increased the cost relatively to iron, which

has never been subjected to the same rigorous ordeal. In 1880, owing

to the increased sources of supply and the progress in manufacture,

the cost of steel had been reduced, relatively to iron, by about

50 per cent. At the time of writing (March, 1884), the price of

steel for a good-sized vessel is—overhead—about seven pounds, seven

shillings and sixpence per ton; while the corresponding figure for

iron is about five pounds, five shillings, or a difference of only

about twenty-nine per cent. in favour of the older material.

Doubts were at first expressed by not a few, regarding the durability

of steel ships compared with those of iron, such misgivings being

aggravated by the thinness of the steel plating. This fear is being

gradually lessened by the results of laboratory experiments and

_bona fide_ experience—the broad deduction from which is, that the

deterioration of steel, under the action of sea water, is no greater

than that of iron, and that, if the same care and constancy in

cleaning and painting, common to ships of the latter material, be

extended to ships of the former, their durability will be equal.

Several large shipowning companies were not slow to place faith in

the new material. In the early part of 1879, the “Allan Line” Company

entrusted to Messrs Denny & Brothers, of Dumbarton, the order for a

huge vessel, which the intrepid confidence of the principal partners

in both the owning and the building firms determined should be of

mild steel, be bound with steel rivets, and have her boilers of

the same material. This was the large steamer _Buenos Ayrean_, the

first transatlantic steamer built with the new material. She was

finished early in 1880, and had not been over nine months in the

water when the order for a second and still larger steel vessel—the

_Parisian_—had been given by the same owners to Clyde builders. The

Union Steamship Company of New Zealand, the Pacific Steam Navigation

Company, Messrs Donald Currie & Co., and several smaller companies,

ordered vessels of steel almost simultaneously, while yet the new

material was in the early stage of trial. Amongst the orders for

steel vessels which were subsequently given, the _Servia_ and

_Catalonia_, for the Cunard Company; the _Clyde_ and _Thames_ and

_Shannon_ for the Peninsular and Oriental Company; the _India_, for

the British India Company; the _Arabic_ and _Coptic_, for the Oceanic

Steam Navigation Company, and the four twin screw steamers of the

“Hill” Line, represent the principals. The companies who then adopted

the new material have mostly continued to have their new ships built

of steel, and to name the vessels since built and now building

in which this material is employed, would simply be to enumerate

three-fourths the fleet of high-class modern merchant ships. There

were 21,000 tons of steel shipping built throughout the United

Kingdom in 1879; 36,000 in 1880; 55,000 in 1881; 126,000 in 1882; and

over 244,000 in 1883. It is computed that at the present time the

amount of steel shipbuilding going on throughout the kingdom is not

less than 175,000 tons, or the largest amount on hand at any one time

since its introduction.

* * * * *

The modification in the structural arrangement of ocean trading

vessels, already spoken of as the continuous-cellular system,

although only within very recent times receiving extended adoption in

the mercantile marine, possesses in some of its essential features

the prestige of years. So long ago as 1854, Mr Scott Russell strongly

advocated the principle of longitudinal construction, and applied

it in practice to ships of the mercantile marine, to the success

of which, in a scientific sense, the _Great Eastern_ is surely

overwhelming testimony. The principle met with much scientific favour

from many besides Mr Russell, but it did not take root in solid

practice. Pecuniary and other kinds of considerations interposed

to prevent its general adoption. The urgency for increase in the

size of vessels was not such as to make longitudinal strength (the

special advantage claimed for the new principle) a great desideratum;

and there was perhaps reluctance on the part of shipbuilders to

relinquish time-tried and familiar methods. The system presently

under notice—although, as has already been said, the same, in its

main principles, as the system then advocated—by its descent through

the Admiralty Dockyards, by its application to merchant vessels—first

of East Coast, and then of Clyde build—and by its close association

with water ballast, has undergone many modifications which almost

constitute it a creation of recent times.

Sir Edward J. Reed, when Chief Constructor of the Navy, introduced

the bracket frame system of construction into iron-clad ships of war,

and, as already indicated, it is largely owing to the experience

of the system as applied and practised in such cases—conjointly,

of course, with its successful introduction in the case of the

_Great Eastern_—that in so short a time it has reached the present

structural perfection, and received such wide extension in merchant

steamships. That it has recently received such wide adoption in the

mercantile marine is due not so much to its structural advantages—and

these are great—as to the way in which it lends itself to the

economical working of steamships in actual service. This will be

more explicitly referred to after some description of the system as

applied in merchant ships has been given.

It is somewhat away from the field this work is concerned with, to

trace the system in its stages of development in ships of war, but it

may be said, shortly, that the impulse which the system has received

in the mercantile marine has in no sense been a transference of the

activity which at all times since its introduction has characterised

the application of the system to the vessels built in our naval yards.

In order to assist the non-technical reader in appreciating what

follows regarding the system in merchant ships, a general idea of

the cellular bottom principle of construction is afforded by Fig. 1.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

This shows in section the bottom part of a vessel amidships, fitted

with a double or inner skin, extending across the ship from bilge to

bilge, and there connected in a watertight manner to the outer bottom

plating. A series of longitudinal plates are worked, fore and aft;

set vertically between the outer skin of the vessel and the plating

of the inner bottom, and connected thereto by continuous angles.

Between these “longitudinals,” and at every alternate transverse

frame, deep plate floors, lightened with oval holes, are fitted,

connected to outer skin by the angle frame, and to inner bottom

plating by pieces of angles corresponding to the vessel’s “reverse

frames.” These floor plates are, in addition, connected by vertical

angles to the longitudinals. Intermediate between the deep plate

floors simple angle bar transverse frames and reverse frames are

fitted, to give support to the outer skin and to the inner bottom

respectively. Until recently, the deep floors consisted of “gusset”

or “bracket” plates, each division being fitted in four separate

pieces, the whole taking the form as shown in dotted outline. This

practice is still most largely followed, but in those yards which are

equipped with large hydraulic punching machines for piercing holes

such as are shown in Fig. 1, the solid floors have superseded the

bracket or four-piece floors, the change effecting a simplification

of work and decided structural advantages.

With the employment of water as a substitute for dry or rubble

ballast, the structural movement under notice may be said primarily

to have begun. This movement has resulted in the present approved

system, which, at the same time that it has regard to water-ballast

with all its attendant advantages, most happily combines the

important qualities of increased strength and security. The need

for ballast in vessels whose service generally comprises “light” as

well as “loaded” runs (as in the coal trade between Newcastle and

London), or in trades where the full complement can only be obtained

by shifting from port to port, is obviously great. It is doubtless to

needs such as these, more than to any demand for increased structural

strength, that the introduction and extended application of the

longitudinal and bracket-plate principle is owing.

The screw-steamer _Sentinel_, built in 1860 by Messrs Palmer of

Jarrow, Newcastle-on-Tyne, is mentioned by some authorities as

embodying some of the main features of the longitudinal and cellular

bottom system, and the screw-steamers _Scio_ and _Assyria_, of 1440

tons, built in 1874 by Messrs Westerman, near Genoa, have been

noticed in a similar connection. The next vessel, in point of time,

which contained features answering to the system now in vogue, and

from the date of whose production the movement has been almost

constantly progressive, was the screw-steamer _Fenton_, built by

Messrs Austin & Hunter, of Sunderland, in 1876.

Clyde builders were not slow to recognise the value of the system in

its application to water-ballast steamers, and almost immediately

some of the more intrepid of their number began to advocate its

adoption, but with some modifications, in vessels then being

contracted for. Mr John Inglis, jun., of Messrs A. & J. Inglis,

Pointhouse, Glasgow, submitted to Lloyd’s Registry in March, 1878,

the scantling section of some cellular bottom vessels, then in

project, which contained several of the improvements introduced in

subsequent practice. Messrs William Denny & Brothers, of Dumbarton,

at the same time took up the principle, and have since actively

applied it to steamers of every character in which water-ballast is

a desideratum. Adopting it, five years ago, in four sister vessels

for the British India Steam Navigation Coy., they subsequently raised

the important issue with the Board of Trade regarding the tonnage

measurement of these vessels. This august body insisted on computing

the register tonnage—the figure upon which the tonnage dues are

levied—not to the top of the inner bottom, but to an imaginary line

half-way down the cellular space—in fact, to where the line of floor

would have been if constructed in the ordinary fashion. Messrs Denny

maintained, in effect, that as the register tonnage was meant to be

a measure of the space available for cargo, the top of the ceiling

on the inner bottom was the only equitable line of measurement. The

principal reason for the Board seeking to pursue this course seems to

have lain in the supposition that owners would endeavour to use the

double bottom for cargo-carrying purposes. An ambiguity in the words

of the Merchant Shipping Act, or their inapplicability to present day

practice, were other possible elements in the case, but doubtless the

red-tapeism and self-sufficiency characteristic of the Board had much

to do with their action. This is borne out by the fact that although

the Messrs Denny succeeded in their plea with respect to vessels

having structural cellular bottoms, the absurd practice is still

followed in cases where the bottom is fitted for water ballast on the

girder principle, _i.e._—the inner bottom fitted upon fore and aft

runners or girders, erected on floors of the ordinary description, as

shown in Fig. 2.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

This formed, and still forms in many places, a very common

arrangement for water ballast steamers, although not so inherent a

feature of the vessel’s structure as the continuous-cellular bottom.

In most cases this system is fitted only for part of the length, and

not, like the cellular system, applied throughout the whole length of

the ship. If it was impossible for the Board of Trade to hold by the

contention that cargo might be carried in bottoms of the structural

cellular type, it is equally untenable in the case of bottoms such as

are now referred to. The difference between the two kinds of ballast

bottoms is one merely of construction, and if any one of the two

lends itself to cargo-carrying purposes, it is certainly the cellular

system. The anomaly is sufficiently striking to merit attention, and

in certain districts where the girder system is largely adopted for

medium-sized vessels, it is felt as nothing short of an injustice,

both by shipowners and builders.

The concession or victory won by Messrs Denny removed a serious

hindrance to the spread and general adoption of the water ballast

cellular system. Other Clyde firms at the same time—or at least soon

after the adoption of the system by the Messrs Denny—took the matter

up and independently did much towards the popularisation of the

cellular mode of construction. Speaking in the early part of 1880,

Mr William John, of Lloyd’s Registry, now General Manager with the

Barrow Shipbuilding Company, said:—“At the time Mr Martell read his

paper on water-ballast steamers before the autumn meeting of this

Institution (Naval Architects) at Glasgow, in 1877, there had been

only two or three small steamers built (since Mr Scott Russell’s

early ones) on the longitudinal principle. Now, it is within the

mark to say there are one hundred steamers, built and building,

whose bottoms are constructed on the longitudinal principle, or

what is better described as the cellular system, amounting probably

to 200,000 tons, and it is not outside the bounds of probability

that a very few years will see the majority of merchant steamers

constructed in this manner.” Mr John’s connection with Lloyd’s at

the time, entitled his statements and opinions with regard to the

prevalency and prospects of cellular construction to be accepted with

every assurance, for it is in such Societies as Lloyd’s where the

best consensus of information regarding the extent and tendencies of

particular types of vessels can be obtained. In point of fact, the

intervening period has witnessed, in great measure, a realisation of

Mr John’s forecast. The advantages of a cellular bottom as regards

safety, and for the purpose of ballasting and trimming vessels,

also as meeting the greater need for longitudinal strength caused

by the enormous growth in the size of vessels, have received that

appreciation from shipowners and shipbuilders which is their due.

The practice has accordingly spread, till now, it would not be rash

to say, quite as many of the ocean-trading steamers being built are

fitted with cellular bottoms as are without them.

The adaptation of water ballast to sailing vessels, as well as to

steamers, has received consideration at the hands of both Tyne and

Clyde builders. Previous to 1877, several small sailing ships were

built on the Tyne, in which provision was made for water ballast in

tanks entering into the structure of the bottom, but erected over

the ordinary plate floors. About 150 tons of water ballast were

carried by these vessels, the filling and discharge of the tanks

being effected by Downton’s pumps, worked by the crew. The trade

in which they were engaged—_i.e._—carrying coal from the Tyne to

Spanish ports, and back to this country with ore—was one in which

the introduction of water ballast proved commercially and otherwise

most advantageous. Two years subsequently Messrs A. M‘Millan & Son,

Dumbarton, introduced water ballast into one of the largest class of

sailing vessels then being built. Unlike previous sailing ships with

provision for water ballast, however, the vessel was constructed on

the structural cellular bottom principle, having bracket floors and

continuous girders, as so generally approved in steamships. Capacity

for water ballast, to the extent of over 300 tons was thus provided,

the filling and discharge being effected by a special donkey engine,

supplied with steam from a large donkey boiler. The boiler also

furnished the motive power for cargo winches, off which, by crank

gear, the manual labour pumps were also brought into requisition.

Facilities for the expeditious management of ballast—the want of

which, in sailing vessels, considerably hinders its adoption—were

thus, in this case, efficiently provided. Several other sailing

ships, built by Messrs A. M‘Millan & Son, and by other shipbuilding

firms on the Clyde, have been fitted with this system, and the result

of experience with these vessels in actual service, thoroughly

encourages its more general adoption.

* * * * *

Many minor, yet aggregately important, structural features which are

products of the progressive movement of recent years, or are simply

revivals of old devices which were “untimely born,” still call for

some notice. As a necessary consequence of the growth in dimensions

and the change in relative proportions of vessels, greater regard has

been paid to the systems of construction in which the longitudinal

principle is involved. This, of course, is evidenced by what has been

said of the cellular bottom system, but various minor structural

features associated with the cellular bottom are also noteworthy in

this connection. It is the practice, for instance, where large ships

are concerned, to fit side stringers in the holds, throughout the

entire length, made intercostal with regard to transverse plate or

web-frames occurring at intervals of 16 or 20 feet, which extend from

the bilge to the main deck. This arrangement—an outline of which may

be found to the right of the section shown as Fig. 1—possesses many

structural advantages, and finds additional favour with shipowners on

account of its leaving a clearer hold for stowage by obviating the

use of transverse hold beams.

Regard for transverse strength has increasingly evinced itself in

the fitting of various kinds of plate side stiffeners or partial

bulkheads. This is well exemplified in a very recent case—that of

the National Company’s steamship _America_, built by Messrs J. &

G. Thomson. This vessel, having been constructed independent of

any special Registry Rules, embodies structural features not common

amongst vessels in which such rules are undeviatingly conformed

to. The system referred to, of plate frames or partial bulkheads,

is one of the most conspicuous of these features. Throughout the

length of the vessel, at intervals of about 18 feet, transverse plate

stiffeners or frames, extending from the shell inwards about 4 feet,

take the place of the ordinary angle frames, and are continuous from

floors to upper deck, the stringers and other longitudinal features

being scored through them. The surplus transverse strength resulting

from this system is such as amply to compensate for uncommonly

large breaches made in the deck beams and plating for light and

air purposes in the saloons. This is a very special feature in the

interior arrangement of the _America_, and will be referred to

further on. The regard for transverse strength, again, conjointly

with the increased attention to minute watertight sub-division,

has led to the fitting of a greater number of complete watertight

transverse bulkheads, relatively to the lengths of vessels.

In vessels of extreme proportions the method of forming shells

two-ply, or of fitting all the shell plates edge to edge with outside

covering-strakes over the fore-and-aft joints, has been recently

revived and much improved. The system, although very expensive,

has been adopted in vessels for the Anchor Line by Messrs D. & W.

Henderson, Glasgow, and subsequently on even a more extensive scale

by the Barrow Shipbuilding Company.

* * * * *

Affecting the structural character of modern ships very materially,

but the result chiefly of an economy in labour, riveting by machine

power has received a wonderfully extended application within recent

years. Structurally, as well as commercially, the system has played a

large part in the progressive movement under review. By its means the

strength of united parts has been enhanced through the increase of

their frictional resistance, and through the rigidity of joints,

due to the more thorough filling of the rivet holes. The subject of

hydraulic or machine power riveting will, however, receive fuller

treatment in a subsequent chapter.

* * * * *

Within the past two or three years cast steel stems, stern-frames,

and rudders, have been taking the place of forged iron work in ship

construction. The practicability of manufacturing these of such

strength and homogeneity as would meet the needs of ship construction

even better than the ordinary forged work, had occurred some five

or six years ago to several engaged in the steel trade. Mr J. F.

Hall, of Messrs William Jessop & Sons, Limited, Sheffield, had the

subject under consideration about that period, and actually made

several small stern posts and rudders for steam yachts and launches.

The advantages of solid and uniform steel castings over iron

forgings—which, with their many weldings, so often prove inefficient

when subject to any sudden shock—were even then rightly enough

appreciated. It was only, however, after patents had been taken out

by Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest, of Liverpool, for various devices

connected with the actual fitting of such features to the ship’s

structure—amongst other things the hanging of rudders without pintles

or gudgeons—that the manufacture of cast steel stern-frames, rudders,

&c., was seriously proceeded with.

In July, 1882, the Steel Company of Scotland (Limited), who are the

manufacturers in Scotland of Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest’s patent form

of rudders and stern-frames, successfully cast a stern-frame—the

first of large size, it is believed, made for actual use in the

construction of a steamer. In April of the same year, however,

Messrs William Jessop & Sons (Limited), of Sheffield, had exhibited

a crucible cast steel stern-frame and rudder of their manufacture,

at the Naval and Sub-Marine Exhibition, held in London. These large

castings, along with others, were subjected to a series of tests in

the presence of Lloyd’s inspectors and other authorities, such as

the forged frames and rudders ordinarily fitted would not have come

through without severe damage, yet all of which the steel castings

withstood most thoroughly.

Testimony to the efficiency of these new features in ship

construction has already been furnished from the arena of actual

experience, by the recent grounding of two steamers in which these

features had been introduced. The screw-steamer _Euripides_, a

Liverpool-owned vessel of about 1780 tons gross, completed in May,

1883, by Messrs Caird & Purdie, of Barrow, some time ago ran upon a

reef of boulders, and remained thumping heavily for several hours.

At the time she was laden with a full cargo of grain, which was

afterwards delivered in perfect condition. The cast steel stem

and stern-frame, which were manufactured by the Steel Company of

Scotland, were practically without damage, notwithstanding that

serious indentations were made in them. The stem, although receiving

the full force of resistance, was not perceptibly altered in shape,

and competent judges who inspected the damage in dock were of opinion

that the stem, with its superior attachments, in all probability

saved the vessel from total loss. The rudder on the _Euripides_ is

of solid cast steel, in one piece, and hung without pintles, and

in a manner involving little or no riveting. In this, as in the

other features, the immunity from serious damage testifies to the

efficiency and durability of the steel castings. The second case of

grounding referred to is that of the screw-steamer _Strathnairn_,

of 400 tons, belonging to Messrs James Hay & Sons, of Glasgow;

one of two vessels built by Messrs Burrell & Son, of Dumbarton,

in which cast steel stern-frames and rudders were adopted. This

vessel got aground while off Harrington, on the north-west coast

of England, about the latter end of March of the present year. Her

stern-frame sustained very considerable shock: such, indeed, as

no ordinary forged work could possibly have undergone with like

result. Subsequent docking showed that it would only be necessary to

straighten the frame at the deflected portions in order to make it

again structurally efficient. This was done, and the vessel is again

actively engaged in service.

The weldless stern-frames, rudders, and stems, as patented by Messrs

Cooke & Mylchreest, Liverpool, and manufactured for them by the Steel

Company of Scotland, Messrs Jessop & Sons, Sheffield, and Messrs John

Spencer & Sons, Newcastle, have various advantageous features which

may be noticed somewhat fully. One of these is the casting of flanges

on the stern-posts, for attaching the shell plates to; by which

arrangement much of the difficult and costly work in the riveting and

fitting of the shell plates at these parts is done away with, while

a considerable increase of strength is obtained. The solid rudder

is a great improvement on the built rudder as usually fitted; the

entire absence of rivets being an important desideratum. The rivets

connecting the rudder-plates to the frame-forging are frequently a

source of trouble and annoyance, through their being loosened by the

constant vibration of the rudder, and the shocks it often receives.

The heads of the rivets not unfrequently drop off, and the rivets

themselves sometimes fall completely out. All this, of course, is

entirely obviated in the solid rudder. By Messrs Cooke & Mylchreest’s

improved method of fitting the rudder—a device which is only

applicable in a casting—pintles are wholly dispensed with, and in

their place a much stronger joint is substituted, with a considerably

increased wearing surface. The rudder is also jointed at the top of

the blade, by means of strong flanges bolted together; an obvious

advantage of this arrangement being that it can be readily unshipped,

even when afloat.

In addition to the stern-frames, stems, and rudders, there are, also

being supplied, keels, garboard strakes, and centre keelsons in long

lengths. It is claimed for these that as the keel, garboard strake,

keelson, and brackets for connecting the floors, are all made in one

piece, they are much stronger than as ordinarily constructed, and

that a considerable saving in both labour and rivets is effected. As

there are no angle irons to contend with, the limber-holes may be

made close to the bottom plating, and a much thinner layer of cement

will, consequently, be needed on the bottom; the saving in this

respect, according to the patentees’ calculation, being 50 tons in a

2,000-ton vessel.

As the prices of these frames and rudders do not exceed those charged

for frames of wrought-iron, and moreover, owing to the pieces which

are cast on to them forming attachments for keels, decks, &c.—thus

cheapening the work of construction in the shipyard—there appears

to be no question of their great superiority. The presence of

blow-holes, not unfrequently a source of misgiving in castings, is

found from experience to be a constantly diminishing fault in these

articles. The demand for them has steadily grown since their adoption

in a few actual cases. It would seem, indeed, that the demand is

only limited by the powers of production possessed at present by the

four or five steel-making firms who have undertaken this class of

work, and have satisfied the requirements of the registration and the

insurance societies.

In addition to the frames and rudders for ordinary screw vessels,

the Steel Company of Scotland have also supplied several sterns for

war vessels, with rams and torpedo openings, which have proved very

satisfactory. Other new adaptations are the casting of large brackets

for shafts of twin screw vessels, of large crank shafts themselves,

and of heavy anchors; the results of tests presently being made fully

warranting the anticipation that the material will very largely be

employed in the future for these important items in the outfit of

merchant vessels.

* * * * *

The more important features of growth or change in ship construction

which have made the past few years a noteworthy period in the

history of mercantile shipbuilding have now been reviewed. Speed,

and propulsive power of steamships, although absorbing very much

of the progress for which the period has been so remarkable, have

not been dealt with, but are reserved for the chapter following.

The subjects named will also necessarily receive some attention in

the chapter devoted to progress in the science of shipbuilding. In

anticipation, however, apologies should be offered for the paucity of

detailed references to the propulsive agents on board ship. Marine

engineering, in all its recent developments, would require for its

proper treatment considerably more space than can be devoted to it in

the present work.

To meet the exigencies of the progressive movement, both practical

skill, scientific knowledge, and commercial enterprise have been

needed on the part of our shipbuilders. These have not been by any

means wanting, as abundantly evidenced by the foregoing record

of what has been achieved. With a continuance of that readiness

displayed by shipbuilders and naval architects to modify, and even

revolutionize if need be, types and methods which the times have

outgrown, the lead in merchant shipbuilding will long be ours. With a

maintenance also of the enterprise shown by our shipowners, Britain

will still continue, as regards the number, size, and power of her

merchant ships, supreme among the nations.

List of Papers and Lectures bearing on recent improvements in

ship design and construction, to which readers desiring fuller

acquaintance with the _technique_ and details of the subjects are

referred:—

ON A NEW MODE OF CONSTRUCTING IRON AND COMPOSITE SHIPS, by Mr J. E.

Scott: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xv., 1871-2.

ON THE STRENGTH OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr William John: Trans. Inst.

N.A., vol. xv., 1874.

ON TRANSVERSE AND OTHER STRAINS OF SHIPS, by Mr William John:

Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.

ON A SYSTEM OF SHIPBUILDING COMBINING TRANSVERSE AND LONGITUDINAL

FRAMING, by Mr James Hamilton, Jun.: Trans. Inst. Engineers and

Shipbuilders, vol. xviii., 1877-88.

ON THE LONGITUDINAL BULKHEAD SYSTEM OF IRON SHIP CONSTRUCTION, by

Mr Edwin W. De Russet, Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xvii., 1876.

ON IRON AND STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Nathaniel Barnaby: Trans.

Inst. N.A., vol. xvi., 1875.

ON STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst.,

N.A., vol. xix., 1878.

ON THE USE OF MILD STEEL FOR SHIPBUILDING in the French Dockyards,

by M. Marc Berrier-Fontaine: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol. xxii., 1881.

ON STEEL IN THE SHIPBUILDING YARD, by Mr William Denny: Trans.

Inst. N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.

ON THE ECONOMICAL ADVANTAGES OF STEEL SHIPBUILDING, by Mr Wm.

Denny: Journal (No. 1) Iron and Steel Institute, 1881.

ON IRON AND STEEL AS CONSTRUCTIVE MATERIALS FOR SHIPS, by Mr John

Price. Proceedings Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1881.

ON STEEL, by Mr James Riley; Lectures on Naval Architecture and

Marine Engineering: Glasgow, William Collins & Sons, 1881.

ON WATER BALLAST, by Mr Benjamin Martell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xviii., 1877.

ON THE CELLULAR CONSTRUCTION OF MERCHANT SHIPS, by Mr William John:

Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxi., 1880.

ON THE INCREASED USE OF STEEL IN SHIPBUILDING AND MARINE

ENGINEERING, by Mr John R. Ravenhill: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xxii., 1881.

ON THE STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS AND PROPORTIONS OF H.M.S. “IRIS,” by

Mr W. H. White: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xx., 1879.

ON THE QUALITY OF MATERIALS USED IN SHIPBUILDING, by Mr H. H. West:

Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.

ON THE USE OF STEEL CASTINGS IN LIEU OF IRON AND STEEL FORGINGS FOR

SHIP AND MARINE ENGINE CONSTRUCTION, by Mr William Parker: Journal,

Iron and Steel Institute, 1883.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS RESPECTING THE RIVETTING OF IRON SHIPS, by Mr

Henry H. West: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.

RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN IRON AND STEEL SHIPBUILDING, by Mr William

John: Iron and Steel Institute, 1884.

CHAPTER II.

SPEED AND POWER OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.

In these days of feverish activity in every avenue of business, when

even leisure has come to be observed at a much more accelerated

_tempo_ than formerly, speed in locomotion would seem to be the

first desideratum, not only on shore but afloat as well. In no ocean

service is the truth of this so apparent as in the transatlantic mail

and passenger service, the oldest and most constantly progressive,

and where at the present time, certainly more than at any former

period, the contest for supremacy amongst rival steamship lines

has assumed the form of increased speed and enhanced passenger

accommodation.

The Atlantic service, for these reasons, as well as because it

exemplifies more of the fruits which have rewarded the joint labours

of the engineer and shipbuilder in improving marine propulsion, may

be selected for detailed review. In other ocean services, of course,

the achievements of engineering and shipbuilding skill have also

been made apparent, and in ways, perhaps, which the Atlantic service

does not exhibit. Reference to these will afterwards be made, but

attention will meantime be confined to the service stated, and to

such considerations of the general progress made in ocean navigation

as are necessarily involved in the particular subject.

It is needless, in view of the frequency with which the story of

ocean steam navigation is told, and especially, considering the

scope of the present review, to enter at any length into the details

of early service. The first practically successful transatlantic

steamers were the _Sirius_ and the _Great Western_, the first a

paddle-steamer 170 feet long, 270 horse-power originally constructed

to ply between London and Cork, and the latter, a paddle-steamer, 212

feet long and about 440 horse-power, designed and built expressly for

the transatlantic service. The _Sirius_ left Cork on the 4th April,

1838, and reached New York on the 22nd; the _Great Western_ left

Bristol on the 7th April, three days after the _Sirius_, reaching

New York on the 23rd—the time taken being thus 18 days and 15 days

respectively. The return voyages of these pioneer long-passage

steamers were made in 16 days and 14 days respectively, their

performances at once establishing the superiority of steamers,

commercially and otherwise, over the sailing ships which had

previously for so long been the recognised medium of transit in the

Atlantic passenger trade.

In 1840 a regular mail service by steamers was first introduced

on the Atlantic. The first of these mail steamers was the Cunard

paddle-steamer _Britannia_, 207 feet long, which sailed from

Liverpool on July 4, 1840, and arrived at Halifax in 12 days 10

hours, the return journey being performed in 10 days. The _Acadia_,

_Columbia_, and _Caledonia_ all of about the same dimensions as

the _Britannia_, at once followed. The success of the Cunard Line

was so marked that opposition was soon provoked, and in 1850 the

Collins Line of American steamers started to compete with the Cunard

liners. The same year also saw the commencement of the well-known

Inman Company, of Liverpool, their first vessel being the _City of

Glasgow_, an iron screw-steamer of 1680 tons and 350 horse-power. The

Allan and Anchor Lines were established in 1856, the Guion Line in

1863, and the White Star Line in 1870.

With the substitution of the screw propeller for the paddle wheel,

first carried out to any great purpose in the small steamer

_Archimedes_ in 1839, but introduced with even greater effect in the

Atlantic steamer _Great Britain_ in 1843, was laid the basis of that

progressive and magnificent success in propulsion which has since

attended ocean navigation. It was with screw-steamers Mr Inman boldly

assailed the Cunard Company in 1850, but notwithstanding this, it was

only in 1862 that the Government consented to sanction the use of

the screw in the mail steamers of the Cunard Company. The _Scotia_,

measuring 366 feet in length, by 47½ feet in breadth, and 30½ feet

depth, launched in 1861, was the last paddle-steamer built for this

company.

The other great improvements contributing to the success spoken of,

were the introduction of engines designed on the compound principle,

and a little later, the employment of the surface condenser, and

the use of circular multitubular boilers. In spite of the success

with which the compound system was attended in vessels built for

the Pacific Steam Navigation Company as early as 1856, and for some

other private owners soon after, the great steamship companies, and

shipowners generally, were very slow to adopt it. It was not until

about the year 1869 that the compound engine came into general use,

and it was only in 1872 that the Cunard Company seriously took it

into favour.

The early steamers of the Cunard Line possessed an average speed of

8½ knots, and took about 15 days for the voyage. Through the Collins

rivalry the speed was increased to an average of 12½ knots, and

the time for crossing the Atlantic was reduced to 12 days 9 hours

outwards, and 11 days 11 hours homewards. In 1856, the powerful

paddle-steamer _Persia_ (the first iron vessel built for the Cunard

Company) was placed on the service, and attained an average speed

of about 13 knots, consuming 150 tons of coal per day. She made the

distance between Queenstown and New York, on an average, in 10½ days.

In 1862 the _Scotia_, belonging to the same company, made the passage

in 9 days.

Coming down to more recent times, the White Star Line, with its

steamships _Britannic_ and _Germanic_, built in 1874 and 1875

respectively, held for a considerable period first place in the

matter of fast steamships. The vessels named were, however, in

time beaten by the newer ships _Gallia_, of the Cunard Line, and

_Arizona_, of the Guion Line. As illustrating the speed at which

the vessels named accomplished the transatlantic voyage—between

Queenstown and New York—the following brief list, compiled from

published records, of fast runs out and home during the period

1875-1881, may here be given:—

+---------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

| | Out. | Home. |

| +-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

| | | D. H. M.| | D. H. M.|

| Britannic, |Aug., 1877,| 7 10 50 | —— | —— |

| Britannic, |May, 1879, | 7 13 7 |May, 1880, | 7 19 22 |

| Germanic, |Oct., 1880,| 7 13 0 |Nov., 1881,| 7 17 34 |

| City of Berlin, |Oct., 1877,| 7 14 12 |Oct., 1875,| 7 15 48 |

| City of Berlin, |Oct., 1880,| 7 20 32 |Sep., 1879,| 7 19 23 |

| City of Richmond, |Oct., 1880,| 8 0 0 |July, 1879,| 8 3 52 |

| Gallia, |May, 1879, | 7 22 50 |May, 1881, | 7 18 50 |

| Arizona, |Sep., 1881,| 7 8 32 |Sep., 1881,| 7 7 48 |

+---------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

When the success of vessels of the size of the _Arizona_ and the

_Gallia_ was made apparent, it was decided by the Cunard Company to

build a larger and faster ship than previous ones. Accordingly, in

the autumn of 1880, specifications were issued to some of the leading

shipbuilding firms, asking them to tender for the construction of a

vessel of 500 feet in length, 50 feet beam, and 40 feet depth. At

the suggestion of Messrs J. & G. Thomson, who were successful in

securing the contract for this remarkable vessel, the dimensions were

increased to 530 feet by 52 feet by 44 feet 9 inches. With these

dimensions, and with mild steel as the constructive material, the new

vessel—the _Servia_—was thereafter proceeded with in Messrs Thomson’s

establishment.

The Guion line, not to be left behind, placed the order for a vessel

of the dimensions first proposed for the _Servia_, with Messrs John

Elder & Co., but, in order to be faster than the _Servia_, the

weight-carrying was considerably reduced, and the boiler power much

increased. The wisdom of this step has been justified by the now

generally received opinion that these fast steamers should not carry

such heavy cargoes as the slower ones. This new vessel for the Guion

line was the _Alaska_, now justly noted for her fast runs across the

Atlantic.

The Inman Company also decided not to lag behind, and as soon as

the conditions of the design of the _Servia_ had been fixed, they

placed the order for a ship—the _City of Rome_—with the Barrow

Shipbuilding Company, intended to be larger, finer, and faster.

Expectations as to speed and carrying powers were not in her

case fulfilled, and the result of the dissatisfaction which this

occasioned, was, that the _City of Rome_ changed ownership, Messrs

Henderson Brothers, of Anchor Line fame, coming into possession.

In the hands of its new owners, the _City of Rome_ was re-arranged

internally, and her boiler power was considerably augmented, while

her engines also were thoroughly revised. When first built, the

vessel was fitted with engines of 8500 horse-power. As revised, they

indicate 12,000 the acquisition being largely due to the fitting of

four additional boilers. The results which have accrued from the

extensive alterations made are such as to have firmly established the

vessel in a foremost place in the Atlantic service.

The performances of the vessels named have been the subject of

considerable interest to all concerned in shipping affairs, and

to the public generally. The following table of fast passages

accomplished during the past two years by these vessels has been

compiled from published records, and from information supplied by the

shipowning companies:—

+-----------------+----------------------+---------------------+

| | Out. | Home. |

| +------------+---------+-----------+---------+

+-----------------+------------+---------+-----------+---------+

| | | D. H. M.| | D. H. M.|

| Do., | May, 1882,| 7 7 0 |Sep., 1882,| 6 21 48 |

| Do., | May, 1882,| 7 4 10 |Jan., 1883,| 6 23 42 |

| Servia, | Jan., 1882,| 7 8 13 | —— | —— |

| Do., | Aug., 1883,| 7 6 0 | —— | —— |

| City of Rome, | May, 1883,| 7 12 16 |June, 1883,| 7 7 4 |

| Do., | June, 1883,| 7 4 56 |July, 1883,| 7 2 19 |

| Do., | Aug., 1883,| 6 22 6 |Aug., 1883,| 6 21 4 |

| Do., | Sep., 1883,| 7 3 0 |Sep., 1883,| 6 23 24 |

+-----------------+------------+---------+-----------+---------+

An addition to the list of competitors was made in the _Aurania_,

built by Messrs Thomson in 1882, and tried in June, 1883, when she

attained a mean speed of 17¾ knots, and showed herself not unequal

to a maximum speed of 18½ knots under circumstances ordinarily

favourable. An untoward and serious accident to her machinery laid

the _Aurania_ aside just as her capabilities in actual service were

being shown. It is during the “passenger season” that the qualities

of these transatlantic steamers are best brought out, and it remains

with the season which has just begun, to demonstrate to the full the

_Aurania’s_ powers.

A similar remark applies to the _Oregon_, a still more recent

competitor from the same stocks as the _Alaska_, whose dimensions

correspond with those of the _Alaska_, except in respect to breadth,

the first-named vessel having 3-ft. 6-in. more beam than the latter,

the figures being—length over all, 520-ft.; breadth, 54-ft.; depth,

40-ft. 9-in. Extra power of engines to the extent of nearly 3000

horses indicated has been fitted in the _Oregon_. On the occasion

of her speed trial on the Clyde she ran the distance between Ailsa

Craig and Cumbrae Head—-29½ nautical miles—in 1 hour 20 minutes, or

about equal to 20 knots per hour. This was attained with the engines

indicating 12,382 horse-power and making 62 revolutions per minute,

the steam pressure being 110-lbs. per square inch. This result was

doubtless attained under conditions more favourable to speed than the

vessel is, as a rule, likely to meet with in actual service; and, as

has been indicated, it still remains with the future to determine

how far the aims of the owners and builders of the _Oregon_ are

realised.[1]

* * * * *

In the _America_, launched from the yard of Messrs J. & G. Thomson,

near the close of 1883, and presently being fitted for sea, the

National Steamship Company (Limited), of Liverpool, have embodied

the results of their careful study of the development and changes in

the mode of conducting the American trade. From such experiments—for

they can hardly be considered anything else—as the rapid passages

of the _Alaska_, the _City of Rome_, and other “greyhounds of the

Atlantic,” the company see it is no longer possible or profitable

to have “composite” vessels—_i.e._, those intended to carry a large

cargo as well as passengers,—but that practically one class of

vessels must be built for the passenger traffic and another for

the conveyance of cargo. The vessel represents an attempt to solve

the problem of producing a ship which shall have large passenger

accommodation and a high speed, with a comparatively small first cost

and a reasonable consumption of coal. She is built of steel, and

of the following dimensions:—Length, 440 feet; breadth, 51¼ feet;

depth of hold, 36 feet; gross tonnage, about 6,000 tons. Her engines

are of the inverted three-cylinder type, the high pressure cylinder

being 63-ins. diameter, the two low pressure cylinders being 91-ins.

each, while the piston stroke is 66-ins. Six double ended boilers

and one single ended, having in all 39 furnaces, are fitted. The

power expected to be developed is about 9,000 indicated. The speed

guaranteed by the builders of the _America_ is 18 knots an hour, and

confidence is entertained by all concerned as to this result being

attained.[2]

It is abundantly evident, notwithstanding what has already been

achieved, that the brisk competition among transatlantic companies

for the “fastest steamer afloat” has not yet exhausted itself. The

determination some time ago publicly expressed by Mr John Burns, the

able chairman of the Cunard Company, to maintain a leading position,

has since taken decidedly active shape in the contract entered into

and now being carried out by Messrs John Elder & Co.: that is, the

construction of the two huge and powerful steamers of unprecedented

speed, already referred to near the beginning of this work. They are

each of 8000 tons burthen, 500 feet in length, 57 feet broad, by 40

feet depth of hold. Engines of 13,000 horse-power will be provided,

which, it is computed, will drive the vessels at a speed of 19 knots

an hour. With the establishment of these remarkable steamships in

this most important service, the prospect is near of a transatlantic

passage lasting only six days, if not indeed considerably under that

period.

Communication with our South African colonies is another service in

which modern progress, as regards high speed, has been conspicuously

manifest. The steamers engaged in this service—belonging to the Union

Steamship Coy. and Messrs Donald Currie & Co.—had special attention

directed towards their powers as to fast steaming were exerted to

the utmost them during the Zulu War of 1879, at which juncture in

the transport of our soldiery. In the autumn of 1878 the _Pretoria_,

belonging to the Union Coy., made the outward passage to the Cape,

_via_ Maderia, in 18 days, 16 hours, including 4½ hours detention.

The passage home was made in the autumn of 1879 by the same vessel

in 18 days, 13¼ hours, including about 5¾ hours stoppages. These

passages are fairly representative of the best performances of the

vessels engaged in this service, and they have not since been much

excelled. In midsummer, 1880, the _Durban_, another of the Union Line

vessels, accomplished the homeward run _via_ Maderia in 18 days, 9

hours, including about 6½ hours stoppages. The _Drummond Castle_,

belonging to Messrs Donald Currie & Co.’s Castle Packet line, has

made the homeward run in 18 days, 18 hours, or, excluding detentions,

in 18 days, 13 hours. The _Hawarden Castle_, of the same line, has

made the fastest outward run on record. In the autumn of 1883 she

accomplished it in 18 days, 15 hours, including five hours detention

at Maderia, leaving the actual steaming time 18 days, 10 hours. The

distance traversed by vessels on this service is some 6,000 miles,

and the average speed attained is about 13 knots per hour. In the

case of one of the Union Coy.’s vessels, the average speed attained

has been as high as 13·8 knots per hour over the greater portion of

the voyage, the indicated horse-power developed being about 2,570,

and the consumpt of coal about 52½ tons per day. For a considerable

time recently the Companies have found it more remunerative to drive

their vessels at moderate speed, but in times of emergency, such

as the outbreak of hostilities in our colonies, their qualities as

transports traversing long distances at high speed are eminently

efficient.

* * * * *

The employment of steamships in long voyages and at high rates of

speed, for which, not so long ago, it was generally supposed sailing

ships were only adapted, has been eminently successful. By the

opening of the Suez Canal the passage to China was shortened from

about 13,500 miles to about 9800 miles, that to India from over

10,000 miles to 6000. Although steamers were running to China _via_

the Cape of Good Hope, before the opening of the Canal, and doing the

service most admirably, it is subsequent to that great change, and

indeed quite recently that the most noteworthy advances have been

made in shortening the time occupied on these important services.

The passage is now made by steamers under ordinary circumstances in

less than thirty days, which sailing ships under the most favourable

conditions took three and a half to four months to accomplish. The

average speed attained by the steamers prior to the short route never

exceeded ten knots; steamers now frequently average twelve knots over

the whole distance, except during their passage through the Canal.

The _Stirling Castle_, built in 1882 by Messrs Elder & Co., for

Messrs Skinner & Co.’s China fleet, attained a speed of 18·4 knots on

her official trial. During 1883 she proved herself to be the fleetest

vessel ever engaged in the China tea-carrying trade, arriving in the

Thames several days ahead of the China mails, although the latter

came part of the way overland. The run from Woosung to London was

made in 27 days 4 hours steaming time. Other vessels belonging to

this Company, and vessels of the other lines on this important

service, although not equalling the performances of the _Stirling

Castle_, are exemplifying almost daily the immense superiority of

steamers over sailing ships for regularity and despatch in long

passages.

As the distance to Australia—_i.e._, some 12,000 miles as ordinarily

taken—is only about 900 miles less _via_ the Suez Canal than by the

Cape of Good Hope, steamers are employed on both routes. On the 12th

May, 1875, the _St. Osyth_ left Plymouth for Melbourne _via_ the

Cape, called at St. Vincent for coal, and thence steamed continuously

to Melbourne, reaching her destination on the 27th June. Her full

steaming time was about 43½ days, the average speed attained being

over 11½ knots per hour. This passage, although considered most

remarkable at the time, has since been surpassed. The _Lusitania_,

of the Orient line, in 1877 made the passage to Melbourne in 40¼

days, including a detention of 1¼ days at St. Vincent while coaling.

Her actual steaming time was almost exactly 39 days, her average

speed being only a trifle under 13 knots. The _Cuzco_, of the same

line, during the summer of 1879, made the homeward passage from

Adelaide to Plymouth in 37 days 11 hours, including all detentions.

In the _Orient_, which was the first vessel specially designed

and constructed for the Australian direct steam service, a most

noteworthy step in advance was made. She was launched in September,

1879, from the yard of Messrs Elder & Co., and on her completion was

tried for speed, when she attained a maximum average speed of 17

knots per hour. She has made the passage from Plymouth to Adelaide,

_via_ Suez Canal, in 35 days 16 hours, and the same voyage _via_ Cape

of Good Hope in 34 days, 1 hour, steaming time.

[Illustration: S.S. AUSTRAL.—ANCHOR LINE.

LENGTH, 455 ft. 0 in.

BREADTH, 48 ft. 0 in.

DEPTH, 37 ft. 0 in.

TONNAGE (GROSS), 5,588 tons.

BUILT BY MESSRS ELDER & CO., 1881.]

The _Orient_ was followed in 1882 by the magnificent _Austral_, whose

high promise was suddenly blighted for a time by an unfortunate

accident. While coaling at her moorings in Sydney harbour by night,

the water was allowed to flow into the ship through her after coal

ports, carelessly left open and unwatched, and she thus gradually

filled, and sank to the bottom. She has since been raised, brought

home, and restored to her pristine splendour. She is presently

engaged in the express service of the Anchor Line between Liverpool

and New York, her performances being such as should gratify all

concerned. The _Austral_ on her trial attained a speed of 17·3 knots,

and has made the passage from Plymouth to Melbourne, _via_ the

Suez Canal, in the unprecedented time of 32 days, 14 hours steaming.

Until quite recently the only direct communication with New Zealand

has been by sailing vessels, but the New Zealand Shipping Company

(Limited) and the Shaw, Savill, & Albion Company (Limited) are at

the present moment in the thick of organising monthly services of

high-class modern steamships to the Antipodes. The former Company in

1883 despatched the _Ionic_, which they had chartered, with other

of the White Star steamships, for the purpose. This vessel made the

passage out to New Zealand in 43 days, and home in 45 days, including

stoppage for coaling. Passages of a similar character have been

made by this vessel and others of the Company’s own fleet, three of

which—the _Tongariro_, _Aorangi_, and _Ruapehu_—are splendid new

steel vessels from the stocks of the famous Fairfield yard. The

vessel last named has just made the passage home from Lyttelton, New

Zealand, to Plymouth, in the marvellously short period of 37 days,

20 hours, 40 minutes, steaming time; the time, with detentions,

being about 39 days. The other Company referred to are having

two magnificent steel vessels built by Messrs Denny & Bros., of

Dumbarton, to be named the _Arawa_ and _Tainui_, each of 5000 tons

gross. These vessels are to maintain a sea speed of 12½ knots, the

engines to be fitted representing a noteworthy advance in the line of

economical consumpt of fuel with prolonged terms of steaming.

* * * * *

Between 1875 and 1882 the number of steamers having ocean speeds of

13 knots and upwards, increased from twenty-five to sixty-five. Of

these there were only ten—previous to 1875—of 14 knots speed and

upwards, whereas at the beginning of 1882 there were twenty-five of

this character. During the years 1882 and 1883 alone the increase

in the number of such vessels has been almost double that for the

previous period named. The highest speed previous to 1875 did not

exceed 15 knots, now there are numerous vessels with speeds exceeding

17 knots, several even approaching 18 knots, while in one or two

cases the speed attained—under favourable circumstances probably—is

stated to have been considerably over 18 knots, the Guion Liner

_Oregon_, indeed, reaching the round figure of 20 knots.

Viewed purely from the point of view of the sea voyager, such results

are alike remarkable and gratifying, whilst considered in their

technical and commercial aspects they also call for admiration. It

is questioned, however, whether in most cases the attainment of

great speed has been accompanied with corresponding or proportionate

advance in other matters with which vital progress is concerned.

Commercially, it is of the utmost importance that increase of speed

and power should be achieved, with the least possible weight of

machinery, water, and fuel to be carried; with the least possible

expenditure of fuel; with safety and efficiency in working; with low

wear and tear, and cheapness of maintenance.

The efficiency of the ship and machinery in fulfilling the various

and often conflicting conditions of economical service is a matter

with which the naval architect and the marine engineer have jointly

to deal. Where the conditions cannot all be equally satisfied, it is

the province of these two to make that sort of compromise which gives

the best results in each special case. In cargo-carrying vessels,

for example, an economy in the consumption of fuel may often be the

dominant and regulating quality. An economy of one-fourth of a pound

per horse-power per hour gives, on a large transatlantic steamer, a

saving of about 100 tons of coal for a single voyage. To this saving

of cost is to be added the gain in wages and sustenance of the labour

required to handle that coal, and the gain by 100 tons of freight

carried in place of the coal. Again, it is estimated that every ton

of dead-weight capacity is worth on an average £10 per annum as

earning freight. Supposing, therefore, the weight of machinery and

water in any ordinary vessel to be 300 tons, and that by careful

design and judicious use of materials the engineer can reduce it

by 100 tons without increasing the cost of working, he makes the

vessel worth £1,000 per annum more to her owners. To these and other

such considerations, which often influence the naval architect and

engineer in their designs, and due regard to one or more of which not

infrequently prevents the attainment of all-round success, should be

added many others concerned with the after-management of vessels. For

example, the length of voyage to be performed, the seasons and the

markets in particular trades, the number of ports of call, and the

coaling facilities at each, are all matters which must be taken into

consideration when measuring, from one standpoint or from particular

instances, the degree of success attained in general.

The diminution in coal consumpt, coincident with the increase of

steam pressure and the acceleration in speed which has been attained

in recent years measures the principal element of progress. In many

of the “racers” of recent times, it is true, speed is attained at

what may appear a great sacrifice of fuel, but these are cases

in which the commercial considerations often used to measure the

efficiency of ordinary cargo-carrying steamers are not applicable.

Owners—of transatlantic steamships especially—realise from experience

that “speed pays,” and they find it of more advantage to ensure

certainty of arrival at the port of destination than to save a few

tons of coals on the voyage.

During the past sixteen years or so the advance made in respect to

the reduced ratio of fuel consumed to power developed has indeed

been considerable. Before the period stated a vessel of say 700 tons

carrying capability was not only much slower than the present-day

vessels but the coal supply amounted to about 16 tons per day of

24 hours, whereas vessels are now being built of like size which

attain an average speed of 9 knots, the consumpt of coal not being

more than 6 tons per day. In 1872 the consumption of coal in vessels

whose engines were worked at a pressure of from 45-lbs. to 65-lbs.

per inch (the latter being then the highest pressure recorded), did

not exceed 2½-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour. This indicated

an improvement in the marine engine during the previous decade,

represented by a reduction in the consumpt of fuel by more than

one-half the amount previously thought indispensable. Since 1872,

there has been a further reduction in the average consumpt of fuel to

the extent of 15 or 16 per cent., or in the average from 2⅛-lbs. to

less than 1¾-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour.

As in the case of the vessels themselves, mild steel is largely

taking the place of iron in the construction of marine boilers. The

change has reduced the weight of this important item of machinery

by about one-tenth, a great advantage in itself, as increasing

the dead-weight capability of the vessel. The questions as to

the reliable character of the boilers made of steel with respect

to strength under working, and as regards corrosion, are being

practically answered as time goes on; and, as in the case of ship

structure, in a way very satisfactory for the new material. There

is every probability that a further advance may soon be made in

connection with marine boilers, in the way of constructing the

shell in solid rings, thus doing away with the longitudinal seams.

The strength of boilers is of course governed by the strength of

the seam, and this is never above 75 per cent. of the solid plate.

Hence, if solid shells are employed, an increase in pressure of about

25 per cent., with the same thickness of shell, may be obtained.

Appliances are now being laid down in the Vulcan Steel and Forge

Coy., Barrow-in-Furness, for this purpose.

Improved appliances and modes of construction, no less than the

change of material employed, have played a large part in rendering

the boilers of modern steamships capable of being worked at the

higher pressures now common. It is not possible, however, with

the space at command, to treat of these; nor is it practicable to

consider or even enumerate all the various improved fittings which in

the aggregate so materially enhance the efficiency of boilers.

One such feature particularly noteworthy because of the success

with which it has been applied to the boilers of very many modern

high-class merchant ships may be shortly referred to. This is the

corrugated mild steel furnace, manufactured by the Leeds Forge

Company on Mr Samson Fox’s patent, an illustration of which is given

in Fig. 4. This shows a single corrugated furnace flue, flanged

at the end to meet the tube plate of the boiler. The strength of

these flues to resist collapse has been proved in the presence

of the officials of the Admiralty, Board of Trade, and Lloyd’s

flue of the same dimensions. An immediate effect of this has been to

increase their average diameter from 3-ft. to 4-ft., the thickness

of plate-½-inch—remaining the same; a result as to diameter and

thickness quite impracticable with ordinary furnaces. Some have even

been made to carry 170-lbs. per square inch of steam pressure, 4-ft.

8-ins. outside diameter constructed of one single plate, with the

weld so arranged as to be below the fire bars in the furnace.

[Illustration: FIG. 4.

THE LEEDS FORGE C^o LTD]

By the corrugated, as against the plain tube, a greatly increased

heating surface is presented to the flame and the heated gases

of the furnace, thus yielding a greatly enhanced evaporative

power, equal to at least 50 per cent. more than in the ordinary

form. Better allowance is made by the corrugated surface for the

expansion and contraction caused by changes of temperature in

the furnace, without in any way impairing its efficiency as a

longitudinal stay for the boiler. Through the increased diameters

and the augmented surface possible by these corrugated tubes, their

adoption lessens the number of furnaces and stokers necessary for

the horse-power required. As a further consequence, the boiler space

may be diminished, and an increase effected in the cargo space or

freight-carrying capacity of the vessel.

The advantages of corrugated flues as compared with plain flues

cannot all be named, but the extraordinary extent to which they are

now employed in the best class of steamships is the best proof of

their superiority. It is stated that if the flues which have been

made by the Company since their introduction about the beginning

of 1878, and are now at work, were placed in one continuous line,

they would extend to a length of over twenty miles, representing, in

marine and other engines, nearly one million horse-power.

The number of separate types of boilers introduced into steamships

has been much increased of recent years—an evidence that engineers

are growingly conscious of the possibilities which may result from

improved efficiency in this agent of propulsion. One direction in

which their efforts at present are being largely put forth, is that

of securing the more complete combustion of fuel in the furnaces.

Considerable success has already attended the working of boilers

under forced draught, or the admission of air to the furnaces under

pressure. Combined with special types of boilers, it has been

affirmed that nearly 50 per cent. more power has been obtained by

this means. There is doubtless much to be expected from this system

in the future, especially as it may be associated with a change in

the form or type of boilers by which the number and weight of such

items will be reduced. The saving of space in the vessel, the economy

in consumption of coal, the reduction in dead-weight of machinery,

are possibilities of the movement now in progress which cannot fail

to effect materially the commercial character of our high-class mail

and passenger steamships, and merchant vessels generally.

Other directions in which advance has been made during the period

under review are, considerably higher steam pressures, less heating

surface, and smaller cylinders, for indicated horse-power developed.

The various improvements in design and construction which have

contributed to these results cannot be entered into with any degree

of fulness here. For detailed treatment of these matters, readers

are referred to the papers read by eminent engineering authorities,

before the various professional and scientific institutions, a list

of which papers follows the present chapter.[3]

Reduction in the weight of machinery per indicated horse-power

developed is, in general terms, the common line in which engineering

effort lies, and in which no little advance has lately been

made. Every possible opportunity of using steel, where it can be

introduced with safety and efficiency, has been taken advantage

of. Hollow crank steel shafts and propeller shafting in place of

solid shafting; propellers and pistons of cast steel in place of

iron; and boilers of mild steel plates, are a few of the directions

in which large weight-savings have been effected. That there is

still great room for improvement in this direction is shown by the

following statement, given by Mr F. C. Marshall, of Messrs R. & W.

Hawthorn, Newcastle-on-Tyne, in his valuable paper read before the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 1883. The figures given show

for various classes of vessels the average weight of machinery per

indicated horse-power, in steamships of the merchant marine—and for

comparison—of the Royal Navy:—

Lbs. per I.H.P.

Merchant Steamers, 480

Royal Navy, 360

Royal Navy, fast cruiser _Iris_, 280

Torpedo Ram, _Polyphemus_, 180

Torpedo vessels, 60

Ordinary marine boilers, including water, 196

Locomotive boilers, including water, 60

The figures given are for weights of machinery, including engines,

boilers, water, and all fittings ready for sea.

One of the most important of recent advances in marine

engineering—affording as it does the means of using higher steam

pressures than have hitherto been used with economy—is the

introduction of the triple expansion description of engines already

referred to. This important departure was begun in 1874, when Mr A.

C. Kirk, of Messrs R. Napier & Sons, designed and fitted on board the

screw-steamer _Propontis_, built for Mr W. H. Dixon, of Liverpool,

by Messrs Elder & Co.—with whom Mr Kirk at that time was engineering

manager—engines involving the principle of triple expansion and

abnormally high pressure of steam. In 1877 the principle received

further practical development on board the _Isa_, a pleasure yacht

fitted with triple expansion engines, designed in 1876 by Mr

Alexander Taylor, consulting engineer of Newcastle-on-Tyne, who has

subsequently designed several other engines of the same type for

larger merchant steamers.

As not infrequently happens in connection with inventions,

several minds were occupied, and independent ideas matured almost

simultaneously, in the matter of triple expansion engines. Mr

Kirk had secured the patent for engines involving this principle

subsequent to, but before he was made cognisant of, Mr Taylor’s work.

At the same time he learned that in quite another quarter the designs

for such a type of engine had already been perfected. Mr Kirk, on

hearing these facts, relinquished the patent rights he had secured.

Notwithstanding this, it is to the success of the engines designed

by Mr Kirk, and fitted by his firm on board the screw-steamer

_Aberdeen_, that the recent development of the system is largely due.

This vessel was built in 1881 for the Australian service of Messrs

G. Thomson & Co., London and Aberdeen, and measures 350 feet by 44

feet by 33 feet. Her engines work at a boiler pressure of 125 lbs.

per square inch. The three cylinders are respectively 30 inches, 45

inches, and 70 inches in diameter, and the stroke is 4 feet 6 inches.

The smallest is the high pressure cylinder, into which the steam is

first admitted; from thence it passes, after expansion, into the

second or intermediate cylinder; after still further expansion

it passes into the third or low pressure cylinder, from whence, after

the expansion is completed, it is discharged into the condenser.

When the _Aberdeen_ was completed, 2,000 tons of dead-weight were

put on board, and the consumption was tested on a four hours’ run

at 1,800 horse-power. The result was the consumption at the rate of

1.28-lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour, with Penrikyber Welsh

coal. From this the designer of the engine inferred a sea consumption

of good Welsh coal at the rate of 1·5 to 1·6-lbs. per indicated

horse-power. The maximum measured mile speed was 13·74 knots, with

2,631 indicated horse-power, and a consumption of 1 ton 17 cwt. per

hour. The vessel started from Plymouth on 1st April, 1881, upon her

first voyage to Melbourne, with 4000 tons of coals and cargo—weight

and measurement—on board. She arrived at Cape Town on the 23rd April,

having accomplished the distance—5,890 miles—in 22 days. After taking

in about 140 tons of coal, she left for Melbourne on the 24th, and

arrived there on the 14th May, in 20 days. The whole time occupied

in steaming from Plymouth to Melbourne was, therefore, 42 days. Her

average indicated horse-power on the voyage has been about 1,880, and

the consumption less than thirty-four tons per day, or at the rate

of about 1·69-lbs. per indicated horse-power over the whole voyage.

Since these results were obtained, Messrs Napier have fitted three

sets of 5000 H.P. triple expansion engines into vessels built for the

Compania Transatlantica Mexicana, and are completing a duplicate of

the _Aberdeen_.

The firm of Messrs Denny & Coy., Dumbarton, are at present making

engines of the triple expansion type for the new steamers of the

Shaw, Savill & Albion Company’s direct New Zealand service. There are

four cylinders and two cranks, the cylinders being arranged in pairs,

tandem fashion, the small on the top of the large. Expansion takes

place in three stages, the first small cylinder taking steam from the

boilers about five-eights of the stroke, and expanding into the valve

chest of the second small cylinder, where it is further expanded.

From thence it exhausts into the valve chest common to both the large

cylinders described. The steam to be supplied to these engines is to

have a pressure of 160-lbs. per square inch, the highest yet carried

in marine engines. These instances of actual advancement, taken in

conjunction with the favourable light in which the triple expansion

principle is regarded by our foremost marine engineers, augur well

for the future of steamship propulsion.

* * * * *

The activity characterising merchant ship construction, and

especially the enormous increase in their dimensions and speed within

recent years, have necessarily led to speculation with regard to what

form the ship of the future will take. There have not been wanting,

indeed, actual propositions and elaborately prepared designs of

what the ideal ship should be. A company was sometime ago formed in

Washington, U.S., to have three vessels built of a novel type, the

patented invention of Captain Lundborg, a Swedish engineer, intended

to make the Atlantic passage in five days. It was also announced that

the order for their construction had actually been given out, but

this is wanting in confirmation. Great expectations were entertained

in America regarding what was termed the dome-ship _Meteor_, built

on the Hudson in the early part of 1883 from the designs of Captain

Bleven. A company had been formed under the designation of the

“American Quick Transit Company,” the chief supporters being Boston

merchants, to build several large steamships on the proposed lines,

but the utter failure of the _Meteor_ to answer the promises of her

inventor has relegated the scheme to the vast limbo of unfulfilled

American projects. Three years ago or more, scientific journals gave

publicity to a scheme of “Ocean Palace” steamship, patented by Mr

Robert Wilcox, of Melbourne, Victoria, the claims for which ranked

themselves under the heads of speed, safety, and comfort. Double

hulls, as in the case of some Channel steamers, were employed, but

each of the hulls was divided into two cigar-shaped portions, thus

giving to the submerged whole, a quadruplicate character, and which,

with its palatial superstructure, was apt to remind one—shall it be

said?—of Rome and her seven hills, or Venice and her island base!

The design, nevertheless, was to give the least resistance with the

greatest buoyancy and stability. The method of propulsion proposed

by Mr Wilcox was also novel. He placed a couple of enormous drums

fore and aft (between the hulls), which were to be driven by the

engines as if they were paddle-wheels. Over these drums was placed

a continuous band of iron links, upon which, at suitable intervals,

paddles or blades were fixed. A comparatively low speed of engine was

to give a high speed of velocity to this band of blades; and as there

would be twenty-one paddles, all immersed at the same time, their

grip of the water was to be such that there should be little slip.

Whether on a serious application of the principles involved in this

invention to a ship for the Australian service the voyage would have

been made, as was claimed, in 26 days, equal to an increase in speed

of 75 per cent., has never of course been determined! Still another

scheme, and one which the inventor has been encouraged to prosecute

by the recommendations of eminent authorities on both sides of the

Atlantic, is that of Captain Coppin, noted for his success in salvage

operations, which consists of an “Ocean Ferry” partaking as to form

somewhat of the features above described for Mr Wilcox’s “Ocean

Palace.” The speed said to be possible by Captain Coppin’s vessel is

twenty knots an hour, and the terminal ports proposed are Milford

Haven and New York. It was announced some time ago that M. Raoul

Pictet, the eminent engineer of Geneva, was engaged upon the question

of ship design and propulsion, and was in hopes that by application

of his ideas he might yet send ships careering over the sea at the

rate of thirty-seven miles an hour!

Enough has been said to show that there is no lack of inventive

effort being put forth towards a realization of the ideal ships of

the future. In a service, however, like that of the Atlantic, where

competition is strong and keen, and where the monetary issues are

neatly adjusted between rival companies, there is little chance of

any of the various projects being tried. An impression exists among

shipowners—for which doubtless there are sufficient grounds—that

time and capital staked on novelties or “new departures” are simply

invitations to defeat in the race or to absolute ruin itself. This

commercial prudence and industrial caution has been startled in

several ways of recent years—_e.g._, by meteoric flashes such as

the _Livadia_ and _Meteor_—the ultimate effect of which has been to

illumine and make clearer the probable line of advancement.

By pretty general consent of those most competent to judge the

ships of the immediate future will possess the broad distinctions

of being either purely passenger or purely cargo-carrying mediums.

It is equally agreed that twin in place of single screw propellers

will be employed, and that for the express ships nothing less than

20 knots per hour will be considered satisfactory. On a subject,

however, concerned not with historical facts, but with theories and

scientific forecasts, it may be well not to enlarge, especially

as the future is evidently charged with possibilities of which

present-day designers can have but indefinite notions. The subject

of employing electrical energy as the propulsive power on board ship

is at the present time engaging serious attention, but the degree of

practical and commercial success attained does not, as yet, warrant

any anticipation of its immediate application to vessels beyond small

craft, such as launches and ferries. In the midst, however, of such

immense and marvellous works achieved by this great—and, in some

senses, modern—force, it would be both idle and unwise to keep out of

view the possibilities of its future as affecting ship propulsion.

List of Papers and Lectures bearing on the speed and propulsive power

of modern steamships, to which readers desiring fuller acquaintance

with the _technique_ and details of the subject are referred:—

ON THE BOILERS AND ENGINES OF OUR FUTURE FLEET, by Mr J. Scott

Russell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.

ON THE COMPOUND MARINE STEAM ENGINE, by Mr Arthur Rigg: Trans.

Inst. N.A., vol. xi., 1870.

ON COMPOUND ENGINES, by Mr Richard Sennett: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xvi., 1875.

ON THE PROGRESS EFFECTED IN THE ECONOMY OF FUEL IN STEAM

NAVIGATION, CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO COMPOUND CYLINDER ENGINES AND

HIGH PRESSURE STEAM, by Mr F. J. Bramwell; Proceedings Inst. Mech.

Engineers, 1872.

OUR COMMERCIAL MARINE STEAM FLEET IN 1877, by Mr J. R. Ravenhill:

Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii., 1877.

ON THE STEAM TRIALS OF H.M.S. _Iris_, by Mr J. Wright: Trans. Inst.

N.A., vol. xx., 1879.

ON THE STEAM TRIALS OF THE _Satallite_ AND _Conquerer_ UNDER FORCED

DRAUGHT, by Mr R. J. Butler: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiv., 1883.

ON COMBUSTION OF FUEL IN FURNACES OF STEAM BOILERS BY NATURAL

DRAUGHT, AND BY SUPPLY OF AIR UNDER PRESSURE, by Mr James Howden:

Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.

PROPOSITIONS ON THE MOTION OF STEAM VESSELS, by Mr Robert Mansel:

Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xix., 1875-76.

ON STEAMSHIP EFFICIENCY, by Mr Robert Mansel: Trans. Inst.

Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxii., 1878-79.

THE COMPARATIVE COMMERCIAL EFFICIENCY OF SOME STEAMSHIPS, by Mr

Jas. Hamilton Jun.: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol.

xxv., 1881-82.

THE SPEED AND FORM OF STEAMSHIPS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO LENGTH

OF VOYAGE, by Mr James Hamilton, Jun.: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xxiv., 1882.

ON THE COMPARATIVE EFFICIENCY OF SINGLE AND TWIN SCREW PROPELLERS

IN DEEP DRAUGHT SHIPS, by Mr W. H. White: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xix., 1878.

ON TWIN SHIP PROPULSION by Mr G. C. Mackrow: Trans. Inst. N.A.,

vol. xx., 1879.

ON MARINE STEAM BOILERS: THEIR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND

WEAR, by Mr Charles H. Haswell: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xviii.,

1877.

ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE COMPOUND ENGINE AND THE ECONOMICAL

ADVANTAGES OF HIGH PRESSURE STEAM, by Mr Fred. J. Rowan: Tran.

Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxiii., 1879-80.

ON COMPOUND MARINE ENGINES WITH THREE CYLINDERS WORKING ON

TWO CRANKS, by Mr Robert Douglas: Trans. Inst. Engineers and

Shipbuilders, vol. xxv., 1881-82.

ON THE TRIPLE EXPANSIVE ENGINES OF THE S.S. _Aberdeen_, by Mr A. C.

Kirk: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.

ON THE EFFICIENCY OF COMPOUND ENGINES, by Mr W. Parker: Trans.

Inst. N.A., vol. xxiii., 1882.

ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND EFFICIENCY OF MARINE BOILERS, by Mr Josiah

M‘Gregor: Trans. Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxiii.,

1879-80.

ON THE STRENGTH OF BOILERS, by Mr J. Milton: Trans. Inst. N. A.,

vol. xviii., 1877.

ON THE USE OF STEEL FOR MARINE BOILERS AND SOME RECENT IMPROVEMENTS

IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION, by Mr W. Parker: Trans. Inst. N.A., vol.

xix., 1878.

ON THE REACTION OF THE SCREW PROPELLER, by Mr James Howden: Trans.

Inst. Engineers and Shipbuilders, vol. xxii., 1878-79.

ON THE PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARINE ENGINE, by Mr F. C.

Marshall. Proceedings Inst. Mech. Engineers, 1881.

ON SOME RESULTS OF RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN NAVAL ARCHITECTURE

AND MARINE ENGINEERING, by Mr William Pearce. Lectures on Naval

Architecture and Marine Engineering: Glasgow, William Collins &

Sons, 1881.

THE SPEED AND CARRYING OF SCREW STEAMERS, by Mr William Denny.

Lecture delivered to the Greenock Philosophical Society, 20th

January, 1882, in honour of the birthday of James Watt (19th Jan.):

Greenock, Wm. Hutchison.

ON THE ADVANTAGES OF INCREASED PROPORTION OF BEAM TO LENGTH IN

STEAMSHIPS, by Mr J. H. Biles: Trans. Inst., N.A., vol xxiv., 1883.

CAST STEEL AS A MATERIAL FOR CRANK SHAFTS, by Mr J. F. Hall, Inst.

N.A., vol. xxv., 1884.

CHAPTER III.

SAFETY AND COMFORT OF MODERN STEAMSHIPS.

Every advance—whether it be in dimensions or power of steamships,

or whether it consist of modifications in their structure or

appointment—toward that ideal period when sea-voyaging will have

attained its maximum of comfort and its minimum of risk, is deserving

of record. The qualities of safety and comfort, even more than

increase of speed and the consequent shortening of sea passages, are

first essentials in the realisation of this great end. The structural

modifications, and the great development in size of recent vessels,

affect the qualities named in ways which already may have been made

evident, but which call for more detailed treatment. The more minute

watertight sub-division of the hulls of vessels, for instance, and

especially the presence of an inner skin or cellular bottom, are

marked accessions to their safety.

The primary object and ruling principle of all proper watertight

sub-division, is so to limit the space to which water can find

access, that in a vessel with one, or even two, compartments open

to the sea, the accession of weight due to the filling of these

compartments would not exceed the surplus buoyancy she should

possess. Until within recent years this was not so fully regarded as

it ought, owing chiefly to the objections of shipowners to minute

sub-division, as impairing a vessel’s usefulness and capacity for

stowage of miscellaneous cargo. These objections have still doubtless

much weight for vessels in certain trades, but the tendency of

modern passenger traffic to estrange itself from cargo-carrying

mediums, makes them almost inapplicable to a large section of our

mercantile marine. There is now, indeed, more faith in well divided

ships generally as being in the long run no less efficient and more

economical than scantily divided ones.

[Illustration: FIG. 5.]

[Illustration: FIG. 6.]

The salutary influence exerted by the Admiralty, in stipulating for

increased sub-division of the hulls of all merchant vessels eligible

for state employment in times of war, worthy of special recognition.

A few years ago only thirty or forty large steamers in the merchant

navy were so constructed, as regards sub-division, that they would

have survived for a few minutes the effect of collision with other

vessels or of grounding on rocks. Within recent years—greatly owing

to the stipulations referred to, and to the desire f shipowners to

comply with them for the reasons given—there are few, if any, of the

many first-class mail steamers turned out, not so constructed.

[Illustration: FIG. 7.]

[Illustration: FIG. 8.]

Much valuable information on the subject was given in a paper on

“Bulkheads,” read before the Institution of Naval Architects in

March, 1883, by Mr James Dunn, of the Admiralty, whose experience in

matters relating to the qualification of merchant ships for State

employment eminently entitles him to be considered an authority.

From diagrams contained in the paper, the effects of good and of

inefficient sub-division of vessels are well illustrated. Figs. 5 to

8 in the present work represent some of these. They are concerned

with two vessels, in one of which—an actual case—the bulkheads were

well placed and cared for, and carried to a reasonable height as

shown in Fig. 5; the result of a collision proving that under such

conditions they were of immeasurable value, while in the other

vessel, although having the same number and a similar disposition

of bulkheads, their presence is rendered valueless by their being

stopped at or about the water-line, as indicated in Fig. 7. In the

first case, a steamer of nearly 5,000 tons, during a fog, ran into

the vessel represented by Fig. 5 and 6, striking her abreast of No. 3

bulkhead, and opening up two compartments to the sea. The bulkheads,

however, as has been said, were carried to a reasonable height,

and the water could not get beyond them—they stood the test—the

vessel did not sink, but kept afloat at the trim shown in Fig. 6,

and in this condition steamed 300 miles safely into port. The second

case—though a suppositionary one merely, yet representative of not

a few merchant steamers now afloat—would not be attended with like

results should such an accident happen as has been described. In

vessels so bulkheaded, the water not being confined to the two holds,

numbered 2 and 3, as it was in the previous actual case, would pour

over the top of the dwarf bulkhead into the foremost hold, and the

ship would soon assume the position indicated in Fig, 8: one not at

all favourable, as may be readily believed, for the completion of a

voyage to port.

These cases illustrate the value of minute and careful sub-division

of the hulls of vessels by watertight bulkheads. Unless, however, the

bulkheads are carried a few feet higher than the level of the water

outside—and it is to be regretted that this is still not infrequently

overlooked or neglected in merchant steamers—they are valueless, and,

indeed, had better not be in the ship at all. They will contribute to

the loss of the vessel by keeping the water at one end, and carrying

her bows under, whereas if they are not fitted, the same volume of

water will distribute itself throughout the bottom of the ship fore

and aft, preserve the even trim of the vessel, and allow more pumps

to cope with the inflow. Although her freeboard, or height of side

above water will be reduced, she will still be seaworthy, the boiler

fires may be kept burning, and the machinery going, sufficiently

long for her to reach a port of safety. Readers appreciating the

above considerations will readily see why it is that sailing vessels

are usually fitted with only one transverse bulkhead—that near the

bow—and understand how it is that the outcry sometimes made by

inexperienced people about the absence of other bulkheads in emigrant

sailing vessels is for most part unheeded by those on whom the

responsibility falls.

From statistics presented in the paper above referred to, it is shown

that during a period of six years, ending with December, 1882, the

average loss per annum of ships not qualified for the Admiralty

list was one in twenty-five; while of ships so qualified the annual

average loss was only one in eighty-six. The chances of loss from

any cause are thus seen to be nearly four times as great for a ship

not constructed to qualify for the Admiralty list as for a vessel

entered on that list. During the first four-and-a-half years of

the period referred to, not one ship of those entered on the list

was lost by collision although a considerable number had been in

collision, and escaped foundering by reason of the safety afforded

by their bulkheads. During 1882 six casualties happened to ships on

the list, one of which—a case of collision—proved fatal. This was a

case, however, such as no merchant steamer afloat at the time would

have been capable of surviving. The whole of the ship—a small one—was

flooded abaft the engine-room, the two after holds being open to

the sea. The whole of the losses from the Admiralty list during the

period referred to—eleven in number—have been from drifting on rocks,

or otherwise getting fixed on shore, with the solitary exception

above quoted. In the same period 76 ships have been lost which had

been offered for admission to the list, but had not been found

qualified; of these 17, or 22½ per cent., were lost by collision;

and 10, or 13¼ per cent., were lost by foundering; most of the rest

stranded or broke up on rocks. The risk of fatal collision, according

to Mr Dunn, is about 1 to 100, irrespective of the class of ship, and

the ships on the Admiralty list enjoy almost absolute immunity from

loss by this cause.

The foregoing indicates the way in which minute water-tight

sub-division has come to be widely regarded. Much requires yet to

be done to reach the end desirable, as there are many vessels built

prior to the movement sadly deficient in the qualities concerned. The

bulkhead near the bow—the “collision” bulkhead, as it is termed—has

done noble service in many cases of collision, and it is with reason

that its position and structural character in all vessels are subject

to special supervision and made a condition of classification in

the Registries. Recently it has been made imperative by Lloyd’s

Society that vessels over 330 feet long should have two additional

water-tight bulkheads extending to the upper deck, in the holds,

forward and aft of the machinery compartment. The requirements of

this Registry, it may be said, constitute at once an anticipation and

a reflex of the needs of merchant ship construction. In water-tight

sub-division, as in other matters, the Society and its large staff of

able surveyors are “powers which make for” sterling efficiency.

The extended adoption of double bottoms is specially contributory

to the safety of vessels in the event of their running over a reef

into deep water, or in going ashore. Numerous instances are on

record of steamships so constructed sustaining damage to the outer

skin, and yet—because of the inner bottom remaining intact and

perfectly water-tight—no serious damage resulting. The case of the

_Great Eastern_ is an early yet notable example. This great vessel

in 1860 ran over a reef of rocks and tore a hole 80 feet long and

10 feet wide in her outer skin, yet, because of this feature in her

construction, she was placed in no jeopardy.

In this connection it would seem that even the employment of

steel as the constructive material affords safety to a vessel in

circumstances which would almost prove fatal to a ship built of iron.

The remarkable experience which befell the first steel ocean-going

steamer—the _Rotomahana_, belonging to the Union Steamship Company of

New Zealand—may here be recounted. While steaming between Auckland

and the Great Barrier Island on New-Year’s-Day, 1880, this vessel

struck upon and ran over a sunken rock. She had a large party of

pleasure seekers on board, and but for the fact that she was built

of such a ductile material as mild steel, the commencement of the

year 1880 might have been clouded by a catastrophe which would have

spread gloom and sorrow throughout New Zealand, if not over a wider

circle. At the earliest possible moment the damaged vessel was docked

for examination. The results are effectively summarised in an extract

from a letter referring to the accident, written by the managing

director of the Company. He says:—“This experience has clearly shown

the immense superiority of steel over iron. There is no doubt that

had the _Rotomahana_ been of iron, such a rent would have been made

in her, that she would have filled in a few minutes.” The starboard

bilge for over 20 feet of its length was more or less indented, one

plate especially being greatly misshapen between two frames. This

plate was removed, hammered, rolled flat again, and replaced—after

the frames which had been bent inwards by the force of the grounding

had been straightened. No new material except rivets were required

for the execution of the repairs. The _Rotomahana_, as if to show her

ability to “laugh at all disasters,” has grounded twice subsequently

on the rocky and treacherous coast along which she plies, yet has

come out of the ordeal with immunity from positive danger. Her

remarkable experience may safely be taken as most convincing evidence

of the suitability of mild steel for shipbuilding. Other cases are

not wanting, however, in which the same thing is exemplified. One

which recently astonished everybody concerned with shipping was that

of the _Duke of Westminster_, a vessel 400 feet in length, built of

mild steel by the Barrow Shipbuilding Coy., which lay bumping for a

week on stony ground near the Isle of Wight, without making a drop

of water. The bottom plating of the _Duke of Westminster_, as she

appeared in dry dock, was corrugated between the frames for more

than half the length of the vessel, and yet not a single plate was

cracked, nor a rivet started. Another case of an equally striking

character is that of the British India Coy.’s steamer _India_, built

by Messrs Denny, of Dumbarton, which went ashore near the mouth of

the Thames in December, 1881, and was left high and dry at low water.

Her bottom, although forced up about 3 inches over a length of about

40 feet amidships, did not give way, and the vessel, during the

period she was aground, did not make a drop of water.

All these are instances of the enhanced safety of ships due to the

employment of steel, which ought certainly to be recognised by

underwriters in the way of reduced premiums for vessels constructed

of this material. One consideration which, it is both curious and

sad to say, militates against this result, and which, judging from

views entertained by shipowners themselves, stands in the way of the

employment of steel, is not its _inability_ but its very _efficiency_

to withstand the results of grounding or other catastrophe. It is

argued that while the effects of grounding are less _severe_ in the

case of steel, and do not result in fracture or through-piercing

because of its great ductility, yet the amount of _damage requiring

repair_ is invariably much greater than in the case of iron. This

view of the matter—which virtually places pounds, shillings, and

pence before the comfort, if not the very lives, of those on board

ship—the author feels bound to say, is not, so far as he knows,

shared by owners of ships engaged in mail and passenger service,

and it cannot surely be entertained by underwriters of any proper

discernment.

Safety in ocean steamships, in so far as affected by design, has

unquestionably received greater attention at the hands of designers

within recent years than formerly. The particular directions in

which this is evinced, as well as the causes at work in bringing it

about, will be dealt with in the chapter on scientific progress,

the object here being to indicate the extent to which the safety

of ships is affected by the qualities of their construction and

outfit. The general question of seaworthiness, affected as it is

by matters almost beyond the province of the marine architect, is

in great measure the care of others concerned. The underwriting

or insurance societies looking to their own interests, the Board

of Trade on behalf of the lieges, and shipowners on their own

and their customers’ and servants’ account, are parties on whom

responsibility devolves in this connection. The question whether

they are duly, and at all times alive to such responsibility, is one

very difficult to answer, and cannot be fully dealt with here. Apart

from the question of remissness by these bodies, in what are clearly

their special duties, there is great difficulty in apportioning

the duties and responsibility aright. The Board of Trade have not

infrequently received checks when with precautionary motives they

have interfered with departments and in matters but little affecting

a vessel’s seaworthiness. The conflict which has so long raged and

still rages between the Board and the shipowners of Britain regarding

the loading of vessels, illustrates, and is indeed the result of,

both difficulties. The Merchant Shipping Bill, introduced by Mr

Chamberlain, and in a modified form now before Parliament, will, it

is hoped, furnish a satisfactory solution of the matter. Shipowners

themselves have too often insisted on exercising functions and

dictating in matters which only may be determined with propriety and

safety by builders or by competent naval architects.