THE EARLY PASSENGER STEAMSHIPS
Robert Fulton was not the first to attempt steam navigation on the
Hudson, and we have already given instances of the experiments made
in the New World; but between the time of his success in Paris and
his return to America, although others had failed before, experiments
still went on. Thus, in the year 1804, John Stevens, whose interest
in the steam propulsion of ships had been aroused by watching Fitch’s
endeavours, decided to see what he could do. So by the month of May
he had constructed a steamboat which succeeded in crossing the Hudson
from Hoboken to New York, being propelled by a wheel placed at the
stern, driven by a rotary engine. In the same month also Robert L.
Stevens crossed from the Battery, New York, to Hoboken in a steamboat
fitted with tubular boilers, which were the first of their kind ever
to be made. The machinery was designed by Stevens himself in his own
workshop, and it is important to add that this vessel was propelled not
by a paddle-wheel but by a double screw, five feet in diameter, with
four blades set at an angle of 35°.
Thus it was that three years before Fulton’s _Clermont_ came on to the
scene with her paddle-wheels, Stevens had already shown the way with
screws. But this success was rather momentary than permanent: a mere
flash, though startling in its brilliancy. Immediately after his return
to America, Fulton had set to work to build the _Clermont_, having
to endure in the meanwhile the scoffings and even threats of the
incredulous, which necessitated the ship being protected night and day
before she was quite ready for service. In addition to the main parts
of the engines which had arrived from Boulton and Watt, there was much
to be done before the combination of hull and parts could produce a
steamboat. In the meantime funds had been drained somewhat extensively,
and an offer was made to John Stevens, to whom we have just referred,
to come in as a partner. The latter happened to be a brother-in-law of
Livingston, Fulton’s patron, but the suggestion was declined. In the
end the money, amounting to a thousand dollars, was found elsewhere,
and the _Clermont_ was completed. We know on Fulton’s own authority
that she measured 150 feet in length, was 13 feet wide, and drew 2 feet
of water, so that the original dimensions, as given in the agreement
which we mentioned as having been made between Livingston and Fulton,
were exceeded. She displaced 100 tons of water, her bottom being built
of yellow pine 1½ inches thick, tongued and grooved, and set together
with white lead. The floors at either end were of oak.
[Illustration: FULTON’S DESIGN OF ORIGINAL APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING
THE RESISTANCE OF PADDLES FOR THE PROPULSION OF THE _CLERMONT_, DATED
1806.
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
Before leaving England in 1806, Fulton had already made a set of
drawings embodying his ideas with regard to the forthcoming _Clermont_.
And so zealous was he for their safety, that before leaving by the
October Falmouth packet he had these carefully placed in a tin
cylinder, sealed and left in the care of a General Lyman, with
instructions that it was not to be opened unless he went down during
the crossing of the Atlantic. But if he reached America safely these
were to be sent across to him in one of the vessels leaving about
the following April, “when the risk will be inconsiderable.” The
illustration on page 64 represents “Plate the First,” giving Fulton’s
design of an apparatus for finding the resistance of paddles for the
propulsion of the _Clermont_. In this he demonstrated the impropriety
of making small paddles for a large boat. Briefly we may explain it
by remarking that Fulton was proving that the paddles in the water
should present, if possible, more surface than the bow of the boat,
and that careful calculation must be reckoned so as to avoid wastage
of power by not making due allowance for the resistance of the ship
as she goes through the water. In Fulton’s time the relation of the
water to the moving ship had not been accurately defined, and for that
matter has not been finally settled to-day, although, thanks to the
patient and valuable experiments of the late Scott Russell, W. Froude
and of his son, Dr. Robert Edmund Froude, we have now considerable
knowledge on the subject, which has borne practical fruit in the design
of the hulls of modern ships. To-day experiments are still going on
in specially-fitted tanks in different parts of England, America and
Germany. At the moment of writing a special launch is being built
at Marblehead, U.S.A., for purely experimental purposes under the
direction of Professor Peabody, since the conditions which prevail in
tanks using small models are not thought to be wholly trustworthy. The
problems to be considered will embrace the number of propellers which
give the best speed; they will be tried in all sorts of positions, and
an endeavour will be made to ascertain the relation of the resistance
of the boat to the force generated by the engines inside, and the
effectiveness which the combination of hull and boat produce. Every
motor-boat owner to-day knows very well that there is a good deal of
difference sometimes between the calculations of the theorist in regard
to the propeller and the knowledge which comes by actual use.
Many of the readers of this volume will no doubt have often been struck
by the enormous rate of speed which a porpoise exhibits as he goes
through the water. Those who spend their time crossing the ocean are
familiar with the sight of these creatures saucily playing about the
bows of a fast liner as she goes tearing through the water. It has
been calculated that it would require no less than 15 horse-power to
obtain the twenty miles an hour at which these animals can travel for
long periods at a time. The explanation is that in their skins there
is a wonderful system of glands, which exude oil and so minimise the
influence of skin-friction. Remembering this, mechanical attempts have
even been made quite recently to obtain a steel plate which would allow
the oil to exude under pressure from the inside of the vessel’s bows.
Possibly, nowadays, every engineer has his own formula for determining
the amount of horse-power essential for a given speed. All sorts of
sliding scales and devices have been invented for this purpose, and the
ideal shape of the modern propeller has still to be ascertained. It is
a well-known fact that when a vessel moves through the sea she sets the
water itself in motion, so that some of it actually travels with the
ship; but Naval Constructor D. W. Taylor, of the United States Navy,
found by experiment in 1908 that when a ship progresses the flow of the
water is down forward, and then it passes under the ship, coming up
again aft. Practically we can sum up the resistance which a ship has to
encounter under three heads. First of all, there is the skin resistance
already mentioned, which, of course, varies with the amount of wetted
surface. Then after the ship has passed through the water there ensues
an impeding eddy at the stern, as the reader must often have observed.
Finally, there is the resistance caused by wave-making, which for
vessels propelled at high speeds is an important consideration, but
varies according to the design of the ship and her pace.
We have digressed somewhat from our immediate historical continuity,
because not merely is it essential to appreciate some of the
difficulties which the ship-man of to-day has to encounter, but in
order to show that, though Fulton was very far from comprehending
all the details of the relations between resistance and hull which
recent experiments alone are determining, yet he was working on right
lines, and with a certainty of aim that was positively unique for
the beginning of the nineteenth century. Reverting, then, to the
illustration on page 64, he explains in his footnote that a nice
calculation must be made on the velocities of the wheels which drive
the paddle-wheels, whilst the same regard must also be had for the rate
at which the paddle-wheels and the boat herself are to move. Thus, he
says, supposing a boat is calculated to run at the rate of four miles
an hour, the paddles and bow presenting equal surfaces in the water,
then the circumference of the wheel must run eight miles an hour, of
which four strike water back equal to the water divided by the boat,
the other four miles, so to speak, _overtaking_ the boat. But, he adds,
if the paddles were made twice as large the engine would stand still.
In the illustration, much of which has necessarily suffered through
having to be reduced, we see an arrangement of pulleys and lines, and a
weight. To the left of the diagram, _A_ represents the boat which is to
be propelled through the water, while _B_, shown at the extreme right
of the illustration, is the paddle which is to send the ship along.
Both present a flat front of four feet to the water. By the known
resistance, Fulton argued, each would require twelve pounds to draw
each one mile per hour, so that if the pulley and weight marked _C_
weighed 24 pounds, and descended to where it is marked “No. 1,” then
the boat _A_ would be drawn to the point marked 2 (seen just to the
right of it) and the paddle would be drawn to that spot marked 3, each
moving through equal spaces in equal times, twelve of the 24 pounds
being consumed by the boat and twelve by the paddles. Thus half of the
power is actually consumed by the paddles. Next, he says, suppose that
the flat front of the paddle is reduced to one foot while the boat
still remains four. “The paddle being one-fourth the size of the boat
must move 2 miles an hour to create a resistance for the boat to move
one mile in the same time.” Finally, as we said, he concludes that the
paddles acting in the water should, if possible, present more surface
than the bow of the boat, and power will thus be saved.
Practically no part of the _Clermont_ was an invention of Fulton: it
was the manner of employing these parts scientifically that brought
him his success. He was able, too, to distribute his weights so well
that not only was the wooden hull able to sustain them, but the vessel
floated on an even keel and was not inflicted with a list either one
side or the other. To have done this in those early days of steamship
building was rather more important an achievement than the average
reader may imagine, but any naval architect and shipbuilder will
readily grant it. The _Clermont’s_ boiler was set in masonry, while
her condenser stood in a large cold-water cistern. Fulton threw the
whole of his enthusiasm into his work, and when, in the early part of
the year 1807, he was invited by the President of the United States to
examine the ground and report on the possibility of making a canal to
join the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain, the inventor, writing on
the 20th of March, had to decline the invitation for, says he, “I have
now Ship Builders, Blacksmiths and Carpenters occupied at New York in
building and executing the machinery of my Steam Boat.”
[Illustration: THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT” AT THE HUDSON-FULTON
CELEBRATIONS, 1909.]
[Illustration:
_Photographs: Topical._
PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE RECONSTRUCTED “CLERMONT.”]
In May, 1909, four folios containing Fulton’s original drawings for his
first _Clermont_--she was afterwards much altered--were discovered,
and a well-known American naval architect was able to draw out the
plans from which the replica of the _Clermont_ was built for the
Hudson-Fulton commemoration, which took place from September 25 to
October 3, 1909. On August 9, 1807, exactly four years to the day
since that memorable sight was witnessed on the Seine, the _Clermont_
was first tried, and Fulton found that his ship was able to “beat all
the sloops that were endeavouring to stem tide with the slight breeze
which they had.” Eight days later she began her memorable voyage on
the Hudson, one of the most historic incidents in the history of the
steamship. At first the _Clermont_ went ahead for a short distance and
then stopped, but as soon as Fulton had been below and examined the
machinery, and put right some slight maladjustment, she went ahead
slowly. The illustration facing page 46 is from a contemporary drawing
in the South Kensington Museum, and should be compared with that here
facing, which is from a photograph taken in the autumn of 1909 of the
reconstructed _Clermont_, built for the Hudson-Fulton celebrations. If
we have the last-mentioned picture in our minds we can easily imagine
that memorable day when, with about forty guests on board, she set
forth. The realistic photograph here given shows about fifty or sixty
people aboard, so that we can gain some idea as to what amount of deck
space was available with so many persons crowding on her. But few
believed that she would succeed in achieving what she did. The crews of
passing vessels, as she went gaily up this gloriously fascinating river
between its hilly banks, could not understand the monster belching
forth sparks from its pine-wood fuel, advancing steadily without sails
in spite of wind or tide. Some abandoned their ships and fled to the
woods in terror, others knelt down and said their prayers that they
might be delivered from so unholy a creature. As we look down on her
decks we can see her under the charge of a paid skipper, with Fulton,
handsome, but anxious both as to his success and the lives of his
guests, on board. Some prophesied that she would blow up, and none
thought she would ever reach her destination. Those who are familiar
with the characteristics of the crews of the modern steamship will
learn with a smile that, of course, her chief engineer was a Scotsman,
the first of that long line of serious-faced men whom Kipling and
others have commemorated in “McAndrew’s Hymn” and the like. Leaving
New York on Monday at one o’clock, the ship arrived at Clermont,
Livingston’s seat, exactly twenty-four hours later, having travelled
110 miles, which is about the distance that an ordinary sailing coaster
nowadays covers in the same time on the sea. Among those on board was
an Englishman, the then Dean of Ripon, though the sentimental may
find perhaps a fitting sequel to the first stage of the voyage, when,
before the ship had yet anchored off Clermont, an announcement was made
that Fulton had become betrothed to another passenger, Miss Harriet
Livingston, niece of that other Livingston with whom Fulton had been
so closely associated in his first steamboat efforts. It was, in fact,
this same statesman who, in making the announcement, also prophesied
that before the close of the nineteenth century vessels having no
other motive power than steam might be able even to make the voyage
to Europe. The ensuing chapters of this book will show how speedily
and with what quickly succeeding changes this possibility was to be
realised.
We need not weary the reader with the details of this first voyage.
It is sufficient to state that the _Clermont_ proceeded to Albany,
covering the remaining forty miles in eight hours, having made the
whole trip of 150 miles in thirty-two hours, at an average of nearly
five miles an hour. The return journey to New York was made in two
hours less. If we look at these two pictures of the _Clermont_, old and
modern, we shall see that she was an odd, clumsy craft. Her machinery
creaked and groaned as if protesting against the new service to which
it was being subjected. She was fitted with a yard and square-sail on
the fore-, and a spanker on her main-mast, but during the journey to
Albany and back the wind was contrary. “I had a light breeze against
me,” wrote Fulton, “the whole way, both going and coming, and the
voyage has been performed wholly by the power of steam. I overtook many
sloops and schooners, beating to the windward, and parted with them as
if they had been at anchor. The power of propelling boats by steam is
now fully proved.” The sails, however, were retained for use on future
occasions when a favourable wind might accelerate the _Clermont’s_
speed.
If the reader will look at the illustration facing page 70, he will
be able to obtain an excellent idea of the vessel’s paddle-wheels.
Here is shown the port side of the replica of the _Clermont_. It will
be noticed that the fly-wheels were hung outside the ship and just
in front of the “water-wheels.” These “water-wheels” were always
getting smashed, and on one occasion, when both of them had been
carried away, the engineer made use of the fly-wheels by attaching
small paddle-boards to the rims, and so the voyage was completed
without much loss of time. Local skippers treated the _Clermont_ in
pretty much the same spirit as Papin’s poor ship had been welcomed by
the local watermen, and the Hudson sailing-masters took a malicious
delight in running foul of her whenever they thought they had the law
on their side. It is not, therefore, surprising to find that Fulton, in
writing to Captain Brink, whom he put in charge of her, commands him
“run no risques of any kind when you meet or overtake vessels beating
or crossing your way, always run under their stern if there be the
least doubt that you cannot clear their head by 50 yards or more.” But
it was no exceptional occurrence for the _Clermont_ to come limping
home with only one of her paddle-wheels working. The circumference
of these was in each case an iron rim of about four inches, and
a contemporary says they ran just clear of the water, as will be
seen from the illustration, the wheels being supported, it will be
noticed, by the shaft coming out through the hull. The boat was decked
forward, and the stern was roughly fitted up for the accommodation of
passengers, the entrance to which was from aft, just in front of the
steersman, who worked a tiller. This was afterwards supplanted by a
wheel, placed near the main-mast, which connected with the rudder by
means of ropes. Steam hissed from every valve and crevice; there was no
steam-whistle, but warning of the boat’s arrival at a wharf was given
by sounding a horn. After her first voyage, when it was decided to put
her into commission as a regular passenger craft, she was somewhat
modified. Thus, her “boiler works,” which had been open, were decked
over, each cabin was fitted with twelve berths, and many parts of the
ship were strengthened with iron work. There was clearly a future for
the steamboat commercially, not merely “because of the certainty and
agreeable movements” of Fulton’s ship, but whereas the average passage
of the sailing packet to Albany took forty-eight hours, the _Clermont_
had done the distance in eighteen hours less. She ran so successfully
that at the end of her first season she cleared 5 per cent. on the
capital which had been expended on her.
It will be seen from the illustrations of the boat that the _Clermont_
had no bowsprit, and, also, that in one her paddle-boxes are shown,
whereas in the other two they do not appear. The explanation is that
originally the wheels were uncovered, but as it was found that the
wheels were likely to become entangled with ropes, and also to annoy
passengers by splashing water on deck, they were covered in. It will
also be noticed from the older illustration that Fulton had guards put
round the paddles as a protection against the inimical sailing ships,
and also to prevent damage when coming alongside a wharf. Steps from
the stern end of these guards were added for convenience in discharging
and embarking passengers from rowing boats. There is also existent a
record by Fulton in which he even mentions that he had so placed the
masts that the awning seen in the earlier illustration could be spread
for the comfort of the passengers. He also claims that he was “the
first who has so arranged the rudder of his Steamboat as that the pilot
may stand near the centre of the boat and near the engineer to give him
orders when to stop or put the engine in motion.”
With regard to the engines of the _Clermont_, Fulton claimed to have
been the first to use triangular beams in the body of his boat “to
communicate the power from the piston rod to the Water wheels,” and
work his air-pump. But if the reader will turn back to the illustration
on page 51, he will find that the triangular beam was also employed in
the engines of his first steamboat on the Seine. During the winter of
1807–8 the _Clermont_ was altered very considerably, so that her name
was changed to that of the _North River_. Writing to Livingston on
November 20th, Fulton suggests that a new hull be built so as to become
nearly twice as stiff as she was originally, that she should carry much
more sail, have a new boiler installed, additional knees and timbers,
new cabins and other improvements. Under her new name this re-built
craft ran regularly to Albany and back at a single fare of seven
dollars a head. On her forestay she carried a fore-sail, and besides
her other courses on her fore-mast she even had stun’s’ls at times,
a mizen with a gaff main-sail being stepped as before. There was a
ladies’ cabin containing six upper and four lower berths. The engine
was one of Boulton and Watt’s, having a cylinder whose piston was 2
feet in diameter. On the top of the piston was a cross-head made of
iron which was slid up and down between guides on the “gallows-frames,”
that reached from the bottom of the vessel to 12 feet above the
deck. This will be clearly seen in the second illustration of the
reconstructed _Clermont_ facing page 70. The “gallows-frames” are just
to the left of the funnel, and the cross-head can be discerned sliding
up and down the iron guides. By comparing this with the below diagram,
a very fair idea will be obtainable of the working of this portion of
her mechanism.
[Illustration: FULTON’S PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR THE ENGINE OF THE
_CLERMONT_
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
The optimists had prophesied correctly: the steamboat had come to
stay. So soon as Fulton had shown the way, and during the eight years
which ensued between the completion of the _Clermont_ in 1807 and
Fulton’s death in 1815, no fewer than seventeen craft of various kinds
were built by him, including the first steam frigate, and the first
steam ferry-boats. Among the number of this fleet were the _The Car of
Neptune_, launched in 1808, the _Paragon_ in 1811, the _Fire Fly_ of
1812, and the _Richmond_ of 1814. Fulton had, from the first, as we saw
when he wrote to Napoleon’s Commissioners, the idea of opening up the
Mississippi and other North American rivers by means of steamships,
and no sooner had he got the _Clermont_ to work satisfactorily than
he wrote: “Whatever may be the fate of steamboats for the Hudson,
everything is completely proved for the Mississippi, and the object
is immense.” When one considers that it was Fulton who introduced
practical steam navigation, not only to the Hudson but to the other
great rivers of North America, and that the _Clermont_ was the historic
embodiment of his thoughts, it seems a pity that no one has been able
to trace the whereabouts of this epoch-making craft. She has vanished;
and was either broken up or disguised beyond recognition.
We mentioned at an earlier stage the names of John and R. L. Stevens,
who had interested themselves in steamboat experiments. Just about the
time that the _Clermont_ was ready for her life’s work these two men
had built another steamship, called the _Phœnix_. Originally intended
for the Hudson River, since now the _Clermont’s_ success had obtained
for Livingston and Fulton the monopoly of the steam navigation thereon,
the two Stevenses decided to send their craft to the Delaware River.
They therefore took her round to Philadelphia by sea in June, 1809,
one of the owners being in command. She arrived quite safely, and for
several years plied profitably on the Delaware. This is important as
being the first occasion in history when the steamship took to the sea,
for it was not until the _James Watt_ achieved her distinction in 1811
that a British ship had shown her full confidence in steam. Impelled
by the impetus which had been given by Fulton and Stevens, the North
American continent, with its vast extent of waterways, quickly realised
the possibilities of the steamboat, so that in the next decade this
novel type of craft became familiar in many parts.
[Illustration: FULTON’S PLANS OF A LATER STEAMBOAT THAN THE
_CLERMONT-NORTH RIVER_, SHOWING APPLICATION OF THE SQUARE
SIDE-CONNECTING-ROD ENGINE.
_From the Original in the possession of the New Jersey Historical
Society._]
[Illustration: THE “COMET.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINE OF THE “COMET.”
_In the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
No apology is needed to the reader for having taken up so much of his
attention in witnessing the growth of the steamship both on the Seine
and the Hudson, for the importance of these rivers in the history of
our subject is anything but insignificant. But let us turn now to see
what was being done in Great Britain, where a kind of slump, or rather
inertia, had been prevalent in regard to the steamship ever since the
_Charlotte Dundas_ had been laid aside. We must cast our eyes in the
direction of the Clyde, where Henry Bell had interested himself in the
steamboat problem. Like others before him, he had begun his experiments
at first with hand-driven paddle-wheels, but it was not long before
the inevitable conclusion was thrust on him that the power ought to be
derived not from human force, but from steam. It was he who had talked
the matter over with Fulton, and had actually accompanied the latter
when a visit was paid to Symington and the two men witnessed a trial
trip of the _Charlotte Dundas_. Bell was a simple, uneducated man, the
proprietor of an hotel at Helensburgh, on the Clyde, where he also
conducted a bathing establishment, and at one time possessed an engine
which was in use at his hotel for pumping up sea-water for the baths.
His enterprising mind argued that it would be for the advantage of his
hotel if he could inaugurate a steamboat service between Helensburgh
and Glasgow, and so he had the _Comet_ built in 1811, by Messrs.
John Wood and Co., of Glasgow. Some interesting details have been
collected of this early British boat by Captain James Williamson in
his book on “The Clyde Passenger Steamer: its Rise and Progress during
the Nineteenth Century” (Glasgow, 1904), and in Mr. James Napier’s
“Life of Robert Napier” (Edinburgh, 1904). The illustration opposite
this page, which represents a model of the _Comet_ now in the South
Kensington Museum, will afford a good idea as to her appearance. As
will be seen, she was a paddle-boat, and originally had two wheels
on either side, but one pair was removed later, as the arrangement was
found to be of too complicated a nature to work satisfactorily. She
was far less of a ship than the _Clermont_, and much more of a river
boat. She did not carry even a single mast, but, as will be noticed in
the model, she utilised her thin, lofty smoke stack for this purpose
and set a yard across it, as the _Clermont_ had done on her fore-mast.
On this yard she set the usual square-sail, while from the end of the
stumpy bowsprit she also set a triangular jib. This model may be taken
as authentic in its details, and it was to David Napier that Henry Bell
entrusted the task of making the boiler and castings. The boat was of
about twenty-five tons burthen, 42 feet long, 11 feet wide, and 5 feet
6 inches deep; was driven by a condensing steam engine developing four
horse-power, and her greatest speed through the water was five miles
an hour. Her cylinder was vertical, the piston-rod driving a pair
of side levers. The crank shaft, on which was fixed a large, heavy
fly-wheel, was worked from the levers by a connecting rod. A reference
to the illustration--which is from a photograph of the identical engine
used in this vessel, and presented to the museum by Messrs. R. and J.
Napier--will reveal these details. Whereas the _Clermont_ had employed
the triangular beam or bell-crank for conveying the power from the
piston-rod to the paddle-wheels, as we saw just now, the _Comet_ had
what was known as the “grasshopper” or half-beam type. The steam was
generated from a boiler set in brickwork, and placed on one side of
the engine. When originally she had her four paddle-wheels--two on
either side--these were driven by means of an intermediate wheel, which
engaged them both by means of spur gearing. The paddles were then, as
will be noticed in the illustration, simply placed on detached arms,
but when the alteration was made complete wheels were given to her.
She was fitted with a fo’c’sle and after-cabin, of which the hatches
will easily be recognised in the model. The engine-room took up the
intervening space amidships.
Writing now in the year when everyone has been interested in the
coming of Halley’s Comet, it is interesting to observe that Henry
Bell’s ship was so called from the fact that a meteor had appeared in
the heavens about that time. In August, 1812, she was advertised as
being ready to ply up and down the Clyde “to sail by the power of air,
wind, and steam,” the announcement also stating that “the elegance,
safety, comfort, and speed of this vessel require only to be seen to
meet the approbation of the public, and the proprietor is determined
to do everything in his power to merit general support.” Apparently,
however, the “general support” was not forthcoming, for commercially
the _Comet_ proved a failure. Historically she was a success, for her
influence was undoubtedly for good, and Napier made some interesting
observations, from which he was able to deduce important conclusions.
Those who are familiar with the history of the sailing ship will be
aware that at the beginning of the nineteenth century both the large
ocean-going ships and the small coasters were distinguished by their
remarkably heavy and clumsy proportions. Especially was the bow still
made bluff and full, since the idea in the minds of the ship-designers
was that their vessels should rather _breast_ the waves than, cut clean
through them, as the clipper-ships afterwards taught should be the
manner. It was the still surviving Dutch influence of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries which had caused this fashion in naval
architecture to prevail for so long. In a sailing boat, where it was
desired to carry sail well forward near the bows--as was essentially
a Dutch custom--and where it was desired to keep the ship as dry as
possible, there was some reason for the high, blunt bow. But with the
advent of steam these conditions disappeared. It is obvious to every
landsman that whatever seaworthy qualities the forward end of a boat
thus designed may possess, the smashing blows which her obstinate
form exchanges with the waves must be a great hindrance to progress
over the water in comparison with the clean, knife-like movement of
the more scientifically designed craft. And so, long before ever the
clipper-ships appeared, the same idea struck David Napier. He spent
some time in making passages from Scotland to Ireland in the Belfast
sailing packets of that time, and came to the conclusion that the
full bow was not suitable for easy propulsion. He followed up these
observations by making further experiments with a model in a tank, and
continually modified the former until he was satisfied. As long as
ever she showed an increase of speed he kept on fining away her bow
and thus diminishing her resistance to the water. What he had in mind,
after seeing the achievements of the _Comet_, was the inauguration of
a steam cross-channel service between Scotland and Ireland to compete
with the sailing packets. At length, having brought his model to what
he deemed was a state of perfection, he had a full-sized ship built
after her by William Denny, the founder of the well-known shipbuilding
firm. The result was the _Rob Roy_, a vessel of about ninety tons and
thirty nominal horse-power. In 1818 she began running between Greenock
and Belfast, after which she was bought by the French Government and
kept up communication between Calais and Dover, though the first time
the English Channel was crossed, from Brighton to Havre, by a steamship
was in the year 1816 by the _Majestic_. Thus, the _Comet_, if not
remunerative to her owner, was anything but a creation of no account.
Bell’s ship did not belie her name, for her life was literally
meteoric. She had been taken “outside,” and on December 13th, 1820,
whilst near Crinan, on the West Coast of Scotland, was unable to
wrestle with the strong easterly wind and nasty tide-race and was
wrecked, Bell himself being on board; happily no lives were lost.
In the following year, _Comet_ the second was built, but she also
foundered in 1825, through collision. In the first days of the
_Comet_, when engineers were working with insufficient data, it was
generally believed that it would be impossible to make a steamship’s
machinery of sufficient strength to withstand the shock of crashing
into a heavy sea, and for some time no steamer went far outside.
There is an interesting anecdote that James Watt, who, though largely
responsible for the successful inauguration of the steamship in the
hands of Fulton, was none the less never directly connected with the
new industry, in his old age visited his native town of Greenock. This
was in the year 1816, or four years after the _Comet_ had commenced
running. On this occasion he took a trip in one of these steam vessels
to Rothesay and back, during which he entered into conversation with
the engineer and pointed out to him the method of “backing” the
engine, and endeavoured with a foot-rule to demonstrate his point. The
engineer, however, was unable to grasp the inventor’s meaning, but
eventually, throwing off his coat and putting his hand to the engine,
Watt explained the idea of using a back-stroke; for, previously to
this the back-stroke of the steamboat engine was not adopted, and the
practice was to stop the engines some considerable time before coming
up to moorings in order to allow of the diminution of the speed. The
incident is related in Williamson’s “Memorials of James Watt,” and
quoted in Chambers’s “The Book of Days.”
Not merely, then, in North America, but in Northern Europe the
steamship had become a practical and interesting success. On the
Clyde the impetus given by the _Comet_ had caused the development of
the steamboat to be more rapid. Vessels larger than Bell’s boat were
being built and put into actual service, and in 1815 one of them was
sent round to the Mersey and thus began the important river steamboat
service which is now so significant a feature of the port of Liverpool.
The River Thames, in like manner, was to yield to the coming of the
steamboat. Although the London newspapers of 1801 refer to the fact
that on July 1 of that year an experiment took place on the Thames for
the purpose of working a barge or any other heavy craft against the
tide “by means of a steam-engine of a very simple construction,” and
go on to state that “the moment the engine was set to work, the barge
was brought about, answering her helm quickly,” and that she made way
against a strong current, at the rate of two miles and a half an hour,
yet this was one more of those isolated incidents which came and went
without leaving in their wake any practical result. At a later date a
steamer which had been running between Bath and Bristol was brought to
the London river by means of canal, and history repeated itself once
more. Just as Papin and Fulton had suffered by the unwelcome attentions
of the local watermen, so it was in this case. The men who earned their
living on the waters of the Thames showed so strenuous an opposition
that the boat had to be taken away.
However, in 1815, a steamboat called the _Marjory_, one of the products
of the Clyde, came round to the Thames and commenced running daily
between Wapping Stairs, near the present Tower Bridge, and Gravesend;
and another boat, the _Argyle_, came from the Clyde also. Both vessels
were, of course, of wood, and both were propelled by paddle-wheels. The
latter was afterwards re-named the _Thames_, and was the inaugurator of
those voyages now so dear to the Cockney between London and Margate.
After an exciting voyage from the Clyde, she steamed up the Thames from
Margate to Limehouse, a distance of seventy miles, at an average of ten
miles an hour. Both of these vessels were of about seventy tons burthen.
We mentioned just now that James Watt always refrained from interesting
himself financially in the steamboat, although it was his own improved
form of engines which made the steamboat a success. But “like father”
is not always “like son” in the race of progress, and in 1816 we find
James Watt, Jun., purchasing a steamboat called the _Caledonia_, which
had also come round from the Clyde to the Thames. After fitting her
with new engines he took her from Margate to Rotterdam and so on to
Coblenz: she was eventually sold to the King of Denmark. Other vessels
of about eighty or ninety feet in length, sometimes with engines by
Boulton and Watt of about twenty horse-power (nominal), were also
presently witnessed on the pea-green waters of the Thames estuary. And
before the second decade of the nineteenth century was ended steamer
communication for cross-Channel services between England and France,
and England and Ireland had already been instituted. But as I shall
deal with this branch of steamship enterprise in a separate chapter, I
need not make any further remark upon that subject now.
[Illustration: SS. “ELIZABETH” (1815).]
[Illustration: RUSSIAN PASSENGER STEAMER (1817).
_From Drawings in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
In the history of the sailing ship the flow of progress was from
east to west, from Babylon to North America, and then it ebbed back
again, bearing in its stream improvements which newer nations had been
able to effect to the sail-propelled ship. To an extent, something
of the same kind happened in the case of the steamship. The latter’s
physically-driven, paddle-wheel prototype began, if not in China, at
least in the Mediterranean, and the first efforts of steam propulsion
were made not many hundred miles north of this. Then, after the Fulda,
the Saône, and the Seine, the movement was to the Hudson, and so back
to Europe through Great Britain and on to Germany and Russia. Of the
progress in steam navigation made in the two latter countries about
this time the illustrations facing page 84 are interesting instances,
and we shall deal with them presently. But before we proceed to discuss
them let us turn back for a moment to Robert Fulton. After he had at
length established the steamboat as a thoroughly sound concern in
America we find him not unnaturally sighing for other countries to
conquer. Accordingly he set his mind on introducing the steamboat not
merely on the chief rivers of North America, but even on the Ganges
and the Neva. The year in which Bell’s _Comet_ had come into service
Fulton had actually entered into a contract with one Thomas Lane to
introduce steamboats into India, and on April 12th of that year he
wrote to a Russian gentleman, who was then staying in London, with
reference to obtaining an exclusive contract for twenty years, for
establishing a steamboat service between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt
within three years after obtaining the grant. It is evident from
Fulton’s correspondence that Imperial permission for this was obtained.
Fulton, however, died in the year 1815, and at the time of his death
the steamboat _The Emperor of Russia_ was in course of construction
previous to being transferred to Russian waters. This enterprise was
postponed and subsequently taken up by other contractors. But the
same year (1815) we find Charles Baird engaged in doing what Fulton
would have carried out had he lived. The upper illustration, then,
which faces page 84 represents a drawing of the steamboat _Elizabeth_.
Originally a barge, she was rebuilt and engined by Baird in 1815 at
St. Petersburg for service on the Neva. The steering arrangement
is not dissimilar to that of some of the Thames sailing barges of
to-day, with the use of the tackle leading from the rudder through the
ship’s quarter to the helm. The reader will doubtless be not a little
amused to notice the brick chimney which stands up in the boat as if
rising from a factory. The engine is hidden away underneath the deck,
but it was of the side-lever type, of which we have already spoken,
with a single cylinder and air-pump. The boiler will be seen placed
aft. The weight of the paddle-wheels was partly supported by the
rectangular frame-work which will be seen stretched across the hull.
The paddle-wheels had each four floats, which were kept level by means
of bevel gear. The other illustration facing page 84 shows another
steamer, which Baird built two years later for passenger traffic
between St. Petersburg and Cronstadt. It will be noticed that, as in
all these early steamboats, the paddle-wheels were placed far forward
towards the bows. In this ship both paddle-wheels were fitted with six
floats, which were driven at fifty revolutions per minute by means of
a side-lever engine that had a large fly-wheel. The arrangement of
this ship’s engines was similar rather to those of the _Comet_ than of
the _Clermont_. Looking at the lower drawing in this illustration we
can easily see how she was propelled. Amidships is the boiler, from
which steam is conveyed to the cylinder, through which appears the
piston-rod, which in turn connects with the side-lever, that is placed
as low as it can be in the boat. The connecting rod comes up from the
forward end of the side-lever to the crank, which is attached to the
shaft, and the latter, revolving, of course turns the paddle-wheels.
And here it may not be out of place to say something concerning the
survival of the beam engine. I have already referred on an earlier
page to its introduction and traced its development from Newcomen’s
atmospheric engine. When, in the early days of the steam engine, its
use had been limited to pumping out water from mines, one connecting
rod was employed in pumping and the other was driven up by the steam
in the cylinder. Then, when the engine was made, not for pumping,
but for giving rotatory motion, the connecting rod which had been
in use for pumping was used to give a rotatory motion, by means of
either the sun-and-planet movement (as in Watt’s patent) or by means
of a crank (as in the patent which his workman stole from him). In
America Watt’s beam engines were imitated very closely, and to-day,
as every visitor to New York is aware, the curious sight is seen of
enormous ferry-boats, towering high above the water, with the beam and
connecting rods showing up through the top of the ship. Now this idea
is all very well where the steamer is concerned only with navigation
on rivers and peaceful waters, but for ocean steaming, where the deck
needs to be covered in from the attacks of the mighty seas, it is
out of the question. Therefore, since it was advisable to retain the
beam in some form, and it could not be allowed to protrude through
the deck, the obvious expedient was adopted of placing it below, but
as far down in the ship as possible. As a general statement we shall
not get far wrong if we state that thus placed, at the bottom, with
the rods working upwards instead of downwards, it was really a case
of turning the engine upside down. Thus arranged it became known as
the side-lever engine, and now, if the reader will look again at the
bottom illustration facing page 84, he will see our meaning. By turning
the illustration round, so that the beam or side-lever is at the top,
this resemblance to the old-fashioned beam engine becomes still more
apparent. Later on we shall be able to show a more complicated form of
the side-lever engine, but for the present this may suffice for the
interest of the non-technical reader. For many years the side-lever
was the recognised form of marine engine, and its advantages included
that of being remarkably steady in its working because its parts were
so nicely balanced. Moreover, it was easy to drive from the beam the
various auxiliary parts, such as the air-pump. It was also very strong,
though both heavy and costly, as it became in the course of time more
complicated.
Although it is true that in Fulton’s _Clermont_ the beam was placed
below the piston-rod, yet that was entirely owing to English influence,
as represented in Boulton and Watt, who had manufactured this engine,
or at any rate a good many of its parts. It is now that the dividing
line comes between the two types, English and American. “From this
primitive form,” says Admiral Preble, in his volume already quoted,
“the two nations diverged in opposite directions--the Americans
navigating rivers, with speed the principal object, kept the cylinder
upon deck and lengthened the stroke of the piston: the English, on the
other hand, having the deep navigation of stormy seas as their more
important object, shortened the cylinder in order that the piston-rod
might work entirely under deck, while Fulton’s working (walking) beam
was retained.” From the engine, in fact, which Boulton and Watt had
constructed at Soho for Fulton, by far the majority of the engines for
the earliest steamboats took their pattern. And if to the Americans
belongs the credit of having so thoroughly and so quickly developed
the steamboat navigation of large rivers, it is the British, as we
shall see shortly, who have been the pioneers of ocean navigation in
steamships.
The upper illustration facing page 90, which has been taken from a
contemporary engraving, is worthy of notice as being the first steamer
actually built in Germany. She represents rather a retrogression than
an advance in the story of the steamship, for she was following still
on those lines which had been in mind when Miller’s double-hulled ship
and the _Charlotte Dundas_ were launched. This vessel, the _Prinzessin
Charlotte_, was built by John Rubie at Pichelsdorf in 1816, for service
on the Elbe, Havel and Spree. As will be seen from the illustration,
her paddle-wheel was placed amidships and covered in. She was driven
by an engine possessing 14 horse-power and made by J. B. Humphreys.
Her long, lanky smoke-stack is supported by numerous stays, while
her double-rudders, though still preserving the helms as used in
contemporary sailing ships, are moved by means of a steering wheel.
Clumsy and beamy, she is inferior in design to the _Comet_, and would
no doubt have needed all the help of her twin-rudders to get her round
some of the narrow reaches of the river. In the adoption and employment
of the steering wheel neither the _Prinzessin Charlotte_ nor the
_Clermont_ was the pioneer of this more modern method, its evolution
having come about on this wise: as the tillers became heavier when the
size of ships increased and the pull on them became greater, some
sort of lanyard was first attached to them so as to get a purchase
and divide the strain; otherwise the steersman would not have been
able to control the ship. We see this as far back as the times of the
Egyptian sailing ships. In medieval times and even in the seventeenth
century the big, full-rigged ships were still steered by a helm in
the stern, the pilot shouting down his orders to the steersmen placed
under the poop. Then, in order to counteract the wild capers which
some of these vessels had a tendency to perform in a breeze, it was an
obvious expedient to fit up an arrangement of blocks and tackles to
the tiller. From this came the transition to the employment of these
in connection with a winch, such as had been used for hoisting up the
anchor. This winch was driven by means of “hand-spikes,” a method
that was not conducive to rapid alteration of the ship’s course. But
in the eighteenth century, when ships were better designed, and many
improvements were being introduced, the handspikes were discarded and
the spoked wheel was connected with the barrel of the winch, placed not
’thwart-ship, but fore-and-aft, so that not merely could the direction
of the ship’s head be altered more quickly, but a steadier helm could
be kept, because it was less difficult to meet the swervings of the
vessel from her proper course. As everyone knows, this steering-wheel
has been improved by many minor alterations, and ropes have given way
to chains and steel wire: but though steam-steering gear is now so
prominent a feature of the modern steamship, the wheel itself is not
yet superseded.
[Illustration: THE “PRINZESSIN CHARLOTTE” (1816).
_From a Contemporary Print._]
[Illustration: THE “SAVANNAH” (1819).]
Already, then, the steamboat had shown herself capable of doing her
work on inland waters, and even for short voyages across Channel,
as well as for coasting within sight of land. Independent of calms,
currents and tides, she was a being of a different kind as compared
with the sailing ship and was carving out for herself an entirely novel
career of usefulness. But the pessimists believed that here her sphere
ended; the long ocean voyages could never be undertaken except in the
sail-carrying ships. However, in the year 1819, the first attempt was
made to conquer the North Atlantic by means of a ship fitted with a
steam engine. In the lower illustration facing page 90 will be seen
the _Savannah_, a full-rigged ship of 350 tons burthen which was
built in New York in 1818 as a sailing vessel pure and simple. That,
it will be remembered, was eleven years after the launching of the
_Clermont_, and during these eventful years there had been plenty of
opportunity for those who wished to obtain proof of what steam could do
for a ship. Whilst the _Savannah_ was still on the stocks, one Moses
Rogers, who had followed the efforts of both Stevens and Fulton, and
had even commanded some of the early steamboats, suggested to Messrs.
Scarborough and Isaacs, of Savannah, that they should purchase this
ship; which eventually they did. Therefore, after being fitted with
her engine, a steam trial trip was made in March, 1819, round New York
Harbour, and a few days later she left for Savannah under sail. During
this voyage of 207 hours she was practically nothing but a sailing
ship, for her engine was only running for four and a half hours. On
the 22nd of May she set forth from Charleston and steamed outside.
It will be noticed on referring to the illustration that there were
no paddle-boxes to cover her wheels, and a remarkable feature of the
_Savannah_ was her ability suddenly to transform her character as a
steamship to a sailing vessel, and vice versa. Within twenty minutes
she could take off her paddle-wheels, and away she could go without any
hindrance to her speed.
So it was, then, after she had brought up outside Charleston.
Unshipping her wheels she got under weigh early in the morning of May
24th, and arrived off the coast of Ireland at noon of June 17th, and
three days later was off the bar at Liverpool. But this voyage proved
little or nothing of the capabilities of the ocean steamship; for of
the twenty-one days during which she was at sea the _Savannah_ only
used steam for eighty hours, and by the time she had arrived off Cork
she had used up all her fuel. However, having now taken on board what
she needed, she was able to steam up the Mersey with the aid of her
engines alone. From Liverpool she went to the Baltic, using her engine
for about a third of the passage. Thence she returned to America,
having unshipped her paddle-wheels off Cronstadt, but, after crossing
the Atlantic and arriving off the Savannah river, she adjusted her
wheels once more and steamed home. Shortly afterwards her engines were
taken out of her, and she ended her days as a sailing packet. Although
her voyages did nothing to help forward the ocean steamer, yet she
caused some amazement to the revenue cruiser _Kite_, which espied her
off the coast of Ireland. Seeing volumes of smoke pouring out from this
“three-sticker,” the _Kite’s_ commander took her for a ship on fire and
chased her for a whole day. The illustration gives a fairly accurate
idea of the ship, though the bow has not been quite correctly given,
and should show the old-fashioned and much modified beak which survived
as a relic of medieval times. It will be noticed that the distance
which separates the main and fore-mast was sufficiently great to allow
of plenty of room for the engine and boiler.
In the meantime the steamship was slowly but surely coming into
prominence and recognition, and the year 1821 was far from unimportant
as showing the practical results which had been obtained. As proof of
the faith which was now placed in steam, the first steamship company
that was ever formed had already been inaugurated the year before, and
in 1821 began running its trading steamers. This was the now well-known
General Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., whose first steamer, the _City
of Edinburgh_, was built on the Thames by Messrs. Wigram and Green,
whose names will ever be associated with the fine clippers which in
later years they were destined to turn out from their Blackwall yard.
The steamship _City of Edinburgh_ was launched in March, 1821, for the
Edinburgh trade, and created so much attention that the future William
IV. and Queen Adelaide paid her a visit, and expressed surprise at the
magnificence of the passenger accommodation. The machinery (which was
only of 100 horsepower) was described by the contemporary press as
“extremely powerful.” In June of that year was also launched the _James
Watt_, of which an illustration is given from an old water-colour.
This vessel was built by Messrs. Wood and Co., of Port Glasgow, and
was referred to by the newspapers of that time as “the largest vessel
ever seen in Great Britain propelled by steam.” The _James Watt_, it
will be seen, was rigged as a three-masted schooner, with the typical
bow and square stern of the period. She was of 420 tons, and measured
141 feet 9 inches in length, 25½ feet wide, and 16½ feet deep. She
had a paddle-wheel, 18 feet in diameter, on either side of the hull.
These were driven by engines of the same horsepower as those of the
_City of Edinburgh_, which had been made by Boulton and Watt. It was in
this year also that the _Lightning_, a vessel of about 200 tons and 80
horse-power, gained further confidence for the newer type of vessel,
for she was the first steamship ever used to carry mails.
Before the third decade of the nineteenth century was closed, a little
vessel named the _Falcon_, of 176 tons, had made a voyage to India--of
course, via the Cape--and the _Enterprise_, a somewhat larger craft
of 470 tons, had also done the passage from England to Calcutta; but
like the _Savannah’s_ performance, these voyages were made partly under
steam and partly under sail, so that these vessels may be regarded
rather as auxiliary-engined than as steamships proper. At the same
time, the _Enterprise_ was singularly loyal to her name, for out of the
113 days which were taken on the voyage, she steamed for 103.
[Illustration: THE “JAMES WATT” (1821).
_From a Water-Colour Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SIDE-LEVER ENGINES OF THE “RUBY” (1836).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Let us now pause for a moment to witness some of the changes which were
going on in regard to the machinery for steamships. In the engines
which were installed in the Russian ship shown opposite page 84 we saw
how the beam had become the side-lever, and why it had been placed in
this position in the steamboat. This had become the customary type
for steamships which were still propelled by paddle-wheels, and the
perfected development had been due to Boulton and Watt, dating from
about 1820. Until about 1860 this type was used most generally, until
ocean-going steamers discarded the paddle-wheel for the screw. It is,
therefore, essential that before proceeding farther we should get
well-acquainted with it, and we shall find that following the lead
which had been given them, especially by the famous Robert Napier,
marine engineers began to build these types, as well for deep-sea
ships as for river-going craft. The illustration here facing, which
has been taken from a model in the South Kensington Museum, represents
the regular side-lever type, the full-sized engines having been made
by a Poplar firm in 1836 for the _Ruby_, which plied between London
and Gravesend, a vessel of 170 tons, and the fastest Thames steamer
of that time. On referring to our illustration, the side-lever will be
immediately recognised in the fore-ground at the bottom. To the left of
this are the two cylinders, side by side. The side-lever is seen to be
pivoted at its centre, whilst at the reader’s left hand the end of this
is joined by a connecting rod. Thus, as the piston-rod is moved upwards
or downwards, so the left-hand half of the side-lever will move. At
the opposite, right-hand, side of the latter the connecting rod will
be observed to be attached to the side-lever, whilst the other end of
the connecting rod drives the crank; the latter, in turn, driving the
shaft on either end of which will be placed a paddle-wheel. In this
engine before us there are two cranks, of which one is seen prominently
at the very top of the picture. Each connecting rod is attached to
two side-levers, one on either side of the cylinder, by means of a
cross-head. Similarly at the piston-rod there is also a cross-head,
with a connecting rod on either side, of which one only is visible.
Later on a modified form of this type of engine was introduced in order
to economise space, for one of the great drawbacks of the side-lever
engine was that it took up an enormous amount of room, which could
ill be spared from that to be devoted to the carrying of cargo or the
accommodation of the passengers. In this modification the cylinders,
instead of being placed side by side, or athwartships, were fore and
aft, the one behind the other.
In 1831, there was built in Quebec, to run between there and Halifax, a
steamer called the _Royal William_ (not to be confused with a vessel of
the same name to which we shall refer presently). The engines were made
by Boulton and Watt, and dispatched across the Atlantic to Montreal,
where they were installed. In 1833, after taking on board over three
hundred tons of coal at Pictou, Nova Scotia, she started on her journey
to the South of England, and arrived off Cowes, Isle of Wight, after
seventeen days, having covered a distance of 2,500 miles. There is some
doubt as to whether she steamed the whole way, or whether she used her
sails for part of the time. At any rate, she measured 176 feet long,
43 feet 10 inches wide (including her paddle-boxes), and after calling
at Portsmouth, proceeded to Gravesend, and was afterwards sold to the
Spanish Government.
[Illustration: THE “SIRIUS” (1838).
_From a Contemporary Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “ROYAL WILLIAM” (1838).
_By permission of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Co._]
We now come to the year 1838, in which a handful of steamers made
history, and showed how uncalled-for had been the ridicule which the
pessimists had cast at the steamship. With this year we reach the
turning-point of the steamship, and from that date we may trace all
those wonderful achievements which are still being added to year by
year. Hitherto no vessel had crossed the Atlantic under steam power
solely. Because of the large amount of fuel consumption which was a
necessary failing of the early steamships, in proportion to the amount
of steam developed, it was denied that it would ever be financially
possible for steamers to run across oceans as the sailing packets
were doing, even if they were capable of carrying sufficient fuel
together with their passengers and cargo. But deeds were more eloquent
than the expounding of theories, and the first surprise was quickly
followed by another, far from inferior. The first of these epoch-making
steamers was the _Sirius_. She was rigged as a brig, like many of the
contemporary sailing ships which then carried mails, passengers, and
cargo between the Old World and the New, whose unsavoury characters
had earned for them the nickname of “coffin-brigs.” This _Sirius_
was a comparatively small ship of 703 tons, and quite small enough to
cross the Atlantic in the weather which is to be found thereon. She
measured only 178 feet along the keel, was 25½ feet wide, her hold was
18¼ feet deep, and her engines developed 320 horsepower. Built for the
service between London and Cork, she was specially chartered for this
transatlantic trip by the British Queen Steam Navigation Company, whose
own vessel, the _British Queen_ (shown opposite page 102), was not yet
ready, owing to the fact that one of her contractors had gone bankrupt.
With ninety-four passengers on board, the _Sirius_ steamed away from
London and called at Queenstown, where she coaled. After clearing
from the Irish port, she encountered head winds, and it was only with
difficulty that her commander, Lieut. R. Roberts, R.N., was able to
quell a mutiny among the crew, who had made up their minds that to
try and get across the North Atlantic in such a craft was pure folly.
Having been seventeen days out, the _Sirius_ arrived off New York on
April 22nd, and before the end of her journey had not merely consumed
all her coal, at a daily average of 24 tons, but had even to burn some
of her spars, so that she had got across just by the skin of her teeth.
But it was her engines which had got her there and not her sails; the
former were of the side-lever type to which we have just referred.
The next day came in the _Great Western_, a much larger craft, that
had come out of Bristol three days after the _Sirius_ had started;
and in her we see the prototype of those enormous liners which go
backwards and forwards across the Atlantic to-day with a regularity
that is remarkable. Unlike the little _Sirius_, the _Great Western_ had
been specially designed for the Atlantic by that engineering genius,
Brunel, who, like his ships and his other works of wonder, was one of
the most remarkable products of the last century. She was built with
the intention of becoming practically an extension of the Great Western
Railway across the Atlantic, and in order to be able to withstand the
terrible battering of the seas, which she would have to encounter, she
was specially strengthened. Here was a vessel of 1,321 tons (gross),
with a length of 236 feet over all, with about half her space taken up
with her boilers and engines. Now the strain of so much dead-weight
in so long a ship whose beam was only 35 feet 4 inches, or about
one-seventh of her length, had to be thought out and guarded against
with the greatest care. And let us not forget that at this time vessels
were still built of wood, and that, except in a few instances, iron had
not yet been introduced. She was given strong oak ribs, placed close
together, while iron was also used to some extent in fastening them.
The advantage of making an ocean-going vessel long is that she is less
likely to pitch in a sea, and will not dip twice in the same hollow;
and if she is proportionately narrow in comparison with her length, she
will also roll less than a more beamy craft. But the difficulty, so
long as wood was employed, was to get sufficient longitudinal strength
to endure the strains of so long a span. We shall be able to get some
idea of this when we consider the behaviour of a vessel in a sea. Waves
consist, so to speak, of mountains and valleys. If the waves are short
and the vessel is long, then she may stretch right over some of them;
but if the contrary is the condition, then, while her ’midship portion
is supported by the water, her fore and aft ends are inclined to droop,
so that in a very extreme case she would break in two. At any rate,
the tendency is for the centre of the ship to bend upwards and the
unsupported ends to droop. This is technically called “hogging.” In the
reverse circumstance, when the ends are supported on the tops of two
mountains of waves, whilst the centre of the ship spans, unsupported,
the intervening valley, the tendency is to “sag.” Now this has to be
allowed for in the construction of the ship, and, as already pointed
out in my “Sailing Ships and Their Story,” this was understood as far
back as the times of the Egyptians, who counteracted such strains as
these by means of a longitudinal cable stretched tightly from one end
of the ship to the other. But with the coming of steamships there was
another problem to be taken into consideration. Engines, boilers, fresh
water for the boilers, coal and so on are serious weights to be placed
in one part of the ship. (In the case of the _Great Western_, the first
three alone weighed 480 tons, although the gross tonnage of the whole
ship was only 1,321.)
Throughout the length of the ship, then, she is subjected not merely
to irregular strains by the peaks and valleys of the waves, but by the
distribution of weights. Her structure has to undergo the severest
possible stresses, and these are different when the ship is loaded and
when she is “light.” If you divide a ship into sections transversely,
as is actually done by the designer, you will find that some parts
are less buoyant than others, no matter whether your ship is made of
wood, iron, or steel. Those sections, for instance, which contain a
steamer’s machinery will have much inferior buoyancy, and, indeed,
were you to sever them from the ship and seal them up so as to be
perfectly water-tight, they would in many cases sink. Therefore, this
irregularity of buoyancy has to be met by making the more-buoyant
sections help to support the less-buoyant. In actual shipbuilding
practice it is customary to regard the greatest stress to a ship as
occurring when she is poised on the crest of a wave, and it is usual
to suppose, in order to safeguard her manner of construction, that she
is poised upon the crest of a wave whose length from trough to trough
is equal to the length of the ship, and the height of the wave from
trough to crest to be one-twentieth of its length when 300 feet long
and below, and one twenty-fifth when exceeding that length.
We have digressed a little from our immediate subject in order to put
into the mind of the general reader some conception of the difficulties
which Brunel had to encounter when he set to work to produce such a
vessel as the _Great Western_. That she was built on sound lines is
proved by the service which she rendered to her owners before she was
finally broken up in 1847. On her first return voyage from New York she
took fifteen days, and the _Sirius_ seventeen. The _Great Western_ had
no such trouble with her “coal-endurance” on her maiden voyage as the
_Sirius_ had suffered, for she had reached New York with one quarter
of her coals still unconsumed, and the obvious conclusion which came
to any reasoning mind was that it certainly paid to build a vessel big
enough to carry plenty of fuel. But the _Great Western_ “paid” in more
senses than this; and at the end of her first year, her directors were
able to announce a dividend of 9 per cent. Thirty-five guineas was the
fare in those days, and the largest number of passengers carried on any
one of her journeys was 152.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT WESTERN” (1838).
_By permission of Messrs. Henry Castle & Sons._]
[Illustration: PADDLE-WHEEL OF THE “GREAT WESTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Like her contemporaries, the _Great Western_ was fitted with side-lever
engines, built by Maudslay. Steam was generated from four boilers,
and conducted into two cylinders, her daily consumption of coal being
about 33 tons. A model of one of her paddle-wheels, which were 28 feet
9 inches in diameter, is here illustrated. This type is known as the
“cycloidal” wheel, in which each float, instead of being made of one
solid piece of material, is composed of several horizontal widths
arranged after the manner of steps in a cycloidal curve, as will be
seen by looking at the right-hand of the wheel. It will be noticed that
through the space left between each “step” the water could penetrate
when the wheel was in the sea, but when revolving out of it, the
resistance to the air was diminished because the latter was allowed to
get through. As the paddle came in contact with the sea, the concussion
was lessened, and thus there was not so much strain on the engines. The
_Great Western_ employed the type introduced by Joshua Field in 1833,
but this form was brought in again by Elijah Galloway two years later.
So far we have seen steamers running from London and from Bristol
to New York. Now we shall see the first steam-vessel crossing from
Liverpool to New York. Facing page 96 is the other _Royal William_,
which was built in 1838 for the Irish passenger trade between Liverpool
and Kingstown, and owned by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company,
by whose courtesy this picture is now reproduced. The _Royal William_
was 3 feet shorter than the _Sirius_, but 2 feet wider, and with a
hold just 6 inches shallower. In July of that same memorable year,
the _Royal William_ made her maiden trip from Liverpool to New York,
having been built and engined at the former port. In was no doubt a
great temptation to emulate what the _Sirius_ had been the first to
perform, especially as the two ships were so similar in many respects.
Outward bound, the _Royal William_ did the trip in about the same time
as the _Sirius_, though her return journey occupied about a day and a
half less than that of the other vessel. But these vessels were not
big enough, nor seaworthy enough, for the toil of the Atlantic, and
both were soon taken off from this route. The illustration reproduced
is from an engraving after a sketch made of the _Royal William_, as
seen in the Atlantic on July 14th, 1838, when in latitude 47.30 N.,
longitude 30.0 W., on her first voyage to New York, and the landsman
in looking at the waves which the artist has depicted may find some
assistance in reading our previous remarks on “hogging” and “sagging”
in this connection.
[Illustration: THE “BRITISH QUEEN” (1839).
_By permission of James Napier, Esq._]
[Illustration: THE “BRITANNIA,” THE FIRST ATLANTIC LINER (1840).
_From a Model. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
Finally, we come to the _British Queen_, which was yet another vessel
to steam across the broad Atlantic, and to show once more that it
was neither good fortune nor the powers of any single vessel that
had conquered the ocean, but the building of the right kind of ship,
engined with suitable machinery. Built in London, and installed with
engines by Robert Napier (by the courtesy of whose kinsman, Mr. James
Napier, the illustration is here given), the _British Queen_ was
considered a wonder in her day, and even exceeded the dimensions of the
famous _Great Western_, costing as much as £60,000 to build. As will be
seen, she is neither brig- nor ship-rigged, but is a barque. In spite
of the hideous old stern of those times and the old-fashioned square
ports, and the medieval custom of stowing one of her anchors abreast of
the fore-mast--a practice which survived until well into the nineteenth
century--her appearance shows that she was an advance on what had gone
before. She had about seven beams to her length, and her bow gives
evidence that the old Dutch influence was at last being forsaken: it
is, in fact, the transition stage before the clippers modified it still
more. The same long space which we noted in an earlier ship, extending
between the fore- and main-mast to afford room for the engines, will
here be recognised, and the paddle-wheels, unlike those of the early
river craft, are placed about amidships. In designing her with about
40 feet greater length than the _Great Western_ had possessed, the aim
was no doubt to attain not merely sufficient space for passengers,
cargo, engines and ample fuel, but also to be able to wrestle with the
long Atlantic waves, whose average length has been computed at about
200 feet. Seventy years ago this _British Queen_ was designed to be 275
feet over all; to-day, the _Lusitania_ is 760 feet thus measured, and
it is this appreciation of the value of length which has a good deal to
do with the evolution of the modern liner from being a moderate-sized
vessel to one of enormous proportions. In her first voyage from
Portsmouth to New York, the _British Queen_ kept up an average speed
for one day of over ten knots, whereas the _Great Western_ had on her
maiden voyage outward-bound averaged about two knots less. Leaving
Portsmouth on April 2nd, 1839, the _British Queen_ arrived in New York
on April 16th, or three days quicker than the first _Royal William_ had
done the journey in the opposite direction under sail and steam. The
_British Queen_ consumed about 613 tons of coal on the way.
Thus we have seen the steamship arrive at a stage very far from being
merely experimental. We have watched her gradually grow from her
infancy, when she was good only as a tug or river craft, until now she
has shown in the enthusiasm of her youth that she can stride across the
Atlantic. It will be our duty in the following chapter to indicate how
she came to be treated with entire confidence, and to take her part in
the regular routine of the world’s work.