THE INAUGURATION OF THE LINER
It was not to be thought that the achievements which we chronicled at
the end of the preceding chapter would remain without their immediate
results. If such small vessels as the _Sirius_, propelled by steam,
could cross the Atlantic and return safe and sound; if still more
easily the _Great Western_ had been able to perform the feat and
to show a substantial return on the capital laid out, surely there
was an assured future for steamship enterprise. “What man has done,
man can do,” is an old proverb, the application of which has led
to the founding of those mighty, excellently equipped fleets which
have transformed the trackless, desolate North Atlantic into a busy
thoroughfare, along whose fixed routes every day of the year are
carried thousands of passengers and tons of merchandise from one
continent to the other. Although nowadays there is scarcely a corner of
the world to which a regular line of steamships does not run, yet it
is the North Atlantic that has always been the scene of the greatest
enterprise in steamship development. We could find plenty of reasons
for this if we cared to inquire into the matter. It was not until the
advent of the transatlantic steamship that all the possibilities of
the Tudor voyages and discoveries began to be appreciated fully. A
continent, like a single country, flourishes not merely by its produce
of wealth, but by its exchange thereof. So long as it is separated
by thousands of miles, every fathom of which is fraught with danger
and has to be traversed by sailing ships whose arrival may be weeks
or months late, which may, in fact, never arrive at all, a tight
restriction is kept on the exchange of wealth; stagnation ensues,
people travel as little as possible, and remain ignorant in their
own narrow provincialism. Whereas, to-day, they take every possible
advantage of travel, of voyaging the world over, not merely to exchange
wealth but to exchange ideas, to add to their knowledge, to wipe out
their provincialism.
For this we must thank the coming of the liner.
It was that memorable year of 1838 that set all this going. Impressed
by the obvious advantages which the steamship now showed for speed and
reliability, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to whose care
was then entrusted the arrangement of postal contracts, saw that those
ancient “coffin brigs” were doomed. Their lordships forthwith issued
circulars inviting tenders for the carrying of the American mails by
steamers. It happened that one of these circulars fell into the hands
of Samuel Cunard, a prominent merchant of Halifax, Nova Scotia. He had
been anything but disconnected with shipping, for he was the owner of
a number of sailing ships trading between Boston, Newfoundland and
Bermuda, and was agent at Halifax for the East India Company, who in
their time owned some of the very finest sailing fleets that ever put
to sea. And this Samuel Cunard had been one of the shareholders of that
first _Royal William_ which crossed in 1833 from Pictou, Nova Scotia,
to the Isle of Wight. A man of energy and enterprise, he had already
realised that a line of steamers connecting the two continents ought to
become something real, and he had sufficient foresight to see that this
was an opportunity which does not occur many times in a generation.
Having made up his mind, after reading this circular, the next thing
was to find the money. In Halifax it was not possible to raise the
required capital, so he crossed forthwith to London. But London is
not always ahead of the provinces, and the wealthy merchants declined
to show their financial interest in the scheme. Therefore, armed
with a letter of introduction from the secretary of the East India
Company, Mr. Cunard travelled north to Glasgow, to Mr. Robert Napier,
whose name we have already mentioned as a great Clyde shipbuilder and
engineer. Napier promised to give him all the assistance possible, and
introduced him to Mr. George Burns, and the latter, in turn, to Mr.
David MacIver. Both had an expert knowledge of the shipping business,
and to a Scotch shrewdness united wide experience and ability to look
ahead. As a result, within a few days the necessary capital of £270,000
had been subscribed, and an offer was made to the Admiralty for the
conveyance of Her Majesty’s mails once a fortnight between Liverpool
and Halifax and Boston. But the owners of the _Great Western_, with a
ship all ready for the work, were not going to let so fine a chance
slip by without an effort. They, too, competed for the privilege,
though eventually the organisation with which Cunard was connected was
considered to have made the more favourable tender. This was accepted
by the Government, and a contract for seven years was signed. The three
enterprisers went to their posts--Cunard to London, Burns to Glasgow,
and MacIver to Liverpool, but before matters had taken a final shape
the Government required that the service was to be carried on by
four ships instead of three, that fixed dates of sailings should be
adhered to, and in consideration of all this a subsidy was eventually
granted to the steamship owners of the sum of £81,000 per year. The
corporation which we now know as the Cunard Company was then called
the British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and
they proceeded to get in hand the building of those first four steamers
of which the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_ to-day are the lineal
descendants. These four, then, were respectively the _Britannia_, the
_Acadia_, the _Caledonia_, and the _Columbia_. They were all built
of wood, all propelled by paddle-wheels, specially adapted for the
transport of troops and stores in the event of war, with an indicated
horse-power of 740, accommodation for 115 cabin passengers, a cargo
capacity of 225 tons, while their dimensions and tonnage differed but
slightly the one ship from the other. Their speed averaged 8½ knots per
hour on a coal consumption of thirty-eight tons a day, the engines in
each case being not unnaturally made by that Robert Napier who had by
his introduction done so much to bring the formation of this company to
a practical conclusion. These vessels were built on the Clyde by four
different builders in the year 1840, but the _Britannia_ was the first
that was ready for service, her measurements being 207 feet long, 34
feet 4 inches wide, and 22 feet 6 inches deep, with a tonnage of 1,154.
Before we go on to outline the marvellous growth which has been seen
under the Cunard Company’s flag, whose history is practically a history
of the Atlantic liner, varied here and there by the happenings which
other rival companies have brought about, it is both curious and
amusing to append the following letter, which has only quite recently
been made public, and which will surprise many of those who here read
it. It is evidence of the remarkable speed at which events may happen,
and men’s minds adapt themselves to newer conditions. Although Samuel
Cunard was part owner of the first _Royal William_ in 1833, and
already three years earlier had thought over the idea of starting a
line of Atlantic steamers, yet it will be seen that towards the end
of 1829 he was not favourably inclined to the project. Having in mind
all that the Cunard Company has done towards the inauguration of the
liner, her continuous improvements, her safety and her efficiency, it
is instructive to read the reply which was sent at this time to Messrs.
Ross and Primrose, of Pictou, Nova Scotia, who had written to Cunard
and Company in regard to steamship establishment:--
“DEAR SIRS,--We have received your letter of the 22nd inst. We are
entirely unacquainted with the cost of a steamboat, and would not
like to embark in a business of which we are quite ignorant. Must,
therefore, decline taking any part in the one you propose getting
up.--We remain, yours, etc.
S. CUNARD AND COMPANY.
“_Halifax_, October 28th, 1829.”
The above letter is now in the possession of Mr. John M. Ross, of
Pictou.
But to return to the first sailing of the new company: the _Britannia_
started the mail service in no conventional manner. Not merely was she
to throw time-honoured custom to the winds by carrying the mails by
the help of steam, but she dealt another blow to sailor-conservatism
by setting forth on her maiden voyage on a Friday, which also happened
to be the fourth of July, a day commemorative of another kind of
Independence. Of course, the old-fashioned prophesied that so flagrant
a disregard for superstition would spell disaster; but somehow the
_Britannia_ managed to arrive quite safely at Boston, on July 18th,
1840, after a voyage of just eight hours beyond a fortnight, though
she had touched at Halifax after eleven days, four hours. The citizens
of Boston celebrated the event with banqueting and wild enthusiasm
as the forging--shall we not say?--of the first of those stronger
links which were to bind the two countries more closely and more
securely together. Four years later, one bitter February, when this
same _Britannia_ was hemmed in, icebound in Boston harbour, the same
enthusiasts liberated her by cutting a canal seven miles long and a
hundred feet wide through the ice, and this entirely at their own
expense.
Facing page 102 will be seen an illustration of a model of this
_Britannia_. Old paintings show her rigged as a barque, with a couple
of ship’s boats in davits on either side, and another hung over the
stern in a manner that will be familiar to those readers who have
seen the American sailing schooners, and some of the Norwegian craft.
The space for boilers and engines still causes that long gap between
the fore- and main-mast that we mentioned earlier. The square stern,
the old-fashioned bows, and her lines generally, show that this first
Atlantic liner was hardly a thing of beauty, if even she is to be
remembered for ever as the first of a new series. Her paddle-wheels
were 28 feet in diameter, and had 21 floats, which measured 8 feet
by 2.8 feet. The mean draught of this little ship was 16.8 feet. Her
engines were of the side-lever type, of course, the making of which
Napier understood so well. Steam was generated in four boilers with
twelve furnaces, and there were two cylinders. As we have already dealt
with the working of these engines we need do little more than ask the
reader to turn to the next page, where he will find a sectional model
of an engine very similar to that which was installed in these first
four Cunard liners. The non-technical reader will find this some
considerable help in following our previous references to engines of
this type, and the section of the cylinder at the extreme left-hand of
the picture will be found illustrative of the working of the piston
inside the cylinder. As we are writing the story of the steamship, and
not a history of engineering, we need not digress from our historical
continuity, and we can now pass on to two other steamers built in 1841,
for the Royal Mail Company. In the illustration facing this page will
be seen the _Teviot_ and _Clyde_ respectively, the former being of
1,793 tons, the latter of 1,371 tons.
We have already spoken of the founding of the General Steam Navigation
Company, and shall speak presently of the Peninsular and Oriental
Company. Following the precedent set by the Cunard Company, the Royal
Mail Line, on March 20th, 1840, entered into an agreement with the
British Government by which the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company were
“to provide, maintain, and keep seaworthy, and in complete repair and
readiness, for the purpose of conveying all Her Majesty’s mails, a
sufficient number (not less than fourteen) of good, substantial, and
efficient steam vessels, of such construction and strength as to be
fit and able to carry guns of the largest calibre now used on board of
Her Majesty’s steam vessels of war, each of such vessels to be always
supplied with first-rate appropriate steam engines of not less than 400
collective horse-power, and also a sufficient number--not less than
four--of good, substantial, and efficient sailing vessels, of at least
100 tons burthen each.” Previous to this agreement, the Government had
conveyed the mails to the West India Islands in gun-brigs, and in those
days we must not forget that the seas were not the free highways that
they are now.
[Illustration: THE “TEVIOT” AND “CLYDE” (1841).
_From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SIDE-LEVER ENGINE.
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
The contract was for ten years, and to take effect from December 1st,
1841. The fourteen ships were all named after British rivers, and many
readers will be aware that this custom of the company has continued
ever since, although in some cases the names of foreign rivers have
also been thus employed. Some of these vessels were built at Northfleet
on the Thames, others (including the _Teviot_ and _Clyde_) were built
at Greenock, others at Dumbarton, Leith, and Cowes. The Lords of the
Admiralty stipulated that the vessels should be built under their
supervision, and a naval officer was put in charge of the mails on each
steamer, and carried out a sort of supervision of the ship’s affairs,
a boat’s crew being always at his service when the mails were being
taken aboard or disembarked. The illustration facing page 112 shows the
launch of the _Forth_ at Leith in 1841. This picture, which is taken
from a contemporary painting, is worthy of perusal, as showing the
close resemblance between the mercantile marine and naval architecture
of the period. Strength rather than slim beauty, massiveness rather
than fineness, formed the keynote both in the steam and sailing ships
of that time. In the same year had already been launched the _Thames_
from Northfleet, and in the following year that vessel inaugurated this
new service, setting forth, like the older packets, from Falmouth. The
voyage from there to the West Indies took about eighteen days, but
exceptional runs were done in seventeen days.
This new steamship departure was an undoubted success, and the
Admiralty admitted that even the Government, with all its naval
resources, could not have succeeded so well as this private company in
getting together and ready for sea in so short a time so many large
and well-equipped new steamers. Financially this meant a very large
outlay, and there was not much less than a million of money expended
on this first fleet. It should be stated, however, that the Government
subsidised the concern by a grant of £240,000 per annum. Presently
Falmouth gave way to Southampton as the headquarters of the Royal Mail
fleet. To-day there are so many big liners calling at the Hampshire
port, and there is at all times of the day so continuous a procession
of all kinds of large steamships, that it is difficult to realise that
in those days this was comparatively a small port.
It was only natural that, as soon as ever the West Indian service
should have proved itself successful, a branch should be extended to
the South American Continent. In 1846, therefore, the company organised
a means of transit by mules and canoes across the Isthmus of Panama,
which were in 1855 superseded by the Panama Railroad. Although we
are departing from our historical sequence in the development of the
steamship, it is convenient here to sketch very rapidly the progress
of the Royal Mail Line farther still, for the evolution of a steamship
company is not necessarily that of the steamship. A small company
may be famous for having one or two ships that are always the last
word in modern ship-building and marine engineering; a large company
may possess a considerable aggregate of tonnage, but its ships may
be behind the lead of others in improvements. For the moment we are
considering the enterprise which enabled the early steamships to
penetrate to distant, over-sea territories where the Elizabethan
sailors had gone in their slow-going ships scarcely three centuries
before.
[Illustration: LAUNCH OF THE “FORTH” (1841).
_By Permission of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co._]
[Illustration: THE “WILLIAM FAWCETT” AND H.M.S. “QUEEN” (1829).
_From the Painting by Frank Murray in the possession of the Peninsular
& Oriental Steam Navigation Co._]
In 1851 the Royal Mail Line service to South America began, and about
1869 those steamers which had stopped short at Brazil, and served the
Argentine by transfer, continued their voyage to Buenos Ayres. In
the course of time it was only to be expected that the heavy subsidy
should be reduced. It dwindled down to £85,000 a year, and was finally
allowed to vanish altogether as recently as June, 1905. Since then the
Royal Mail Company has extended its West Indian service to New York
via Jamaica. During the Crimean War some of the vessels of this line
did good service as transports, and even more recently still during
the South African War. It was on one of the vessels of this line that,
during the American Civil War, an incident occurred which was of
international importance. The ship which was brought so prominently
into notice was the _Trent_, that had been launched at Northfleet.
Some readers will doubtless remember that Messrs. Slidell and Mason
were forcibly taken from this vessel by a Federal man-of-war, and that
Lord Palmerston, by his action in the matter, set forth that valuable
doctrine, still recognised, that an individual on board a British ship
is as safe from foreign interference as if he were on British soil.
It was in 1840, also, that the Pacific Steam Navigation Company was
granted its charter, and its history is, so to speak, a complement of
that of the Royal Mail Company.[B] After the latter had extended its
service to the Isthmus of Panama, and established a means of transit
across to the western coast, it was evident that the Pacific littoral
was ready for the steamship, and this the Pacific Steam Navigation
Company now supplied. In the olden days the sailing ship had been
the only means of doing this, but that meant braving the terrors of
Cape Horn, as many of the surviving sailing ships do to this day. But
the enterprise of the Royal Mail Line on the one side of the narrow
neck separating North from South America, and the co-operation of
the Pacific Steam Navigation Company on the other, together with the
intervening land-journey, brought the inhabitants of the Southern
Pacific much nearer to Europe. The Panama Canal, which is promised for
opening in 1915, was thus foreshadowed. Sending round its two steamers,
the _Chile_ and _Peru_, to the west coast, the Pacific Company opened
up a new sphere of commerce, and these two steamships were the very
first steam-propelled craft that ever passed through the Straits of
Magellan.
[B] The Royal Mail Co. has now absorbed the Pacific Steam
Navigation Co.
The foundation of the Peninsular Company dates back as far as 1837.
Even a year or two before then its ships had commenced running to the
Peninsula, but at the time mentioned a regular service of mail packets
from London to Lisbon and Gibraltar was instituted. Here again we find
the existence of a contract between the Admiralty and a steamship
company for the carrying of the mails, but it was not until 1840 that
the line was extended to Malta and Alexandria, and was incorporated
by Royal Charter under the now well-known title of the Peninsular
and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, with a view to carrying on
operations in the Far East. The lower illustration facing page 112
shows the first steamship owned by the Peninsular Company, a little
paddle vessel of only 209 tons. This was the _William Fawcett_, which
was built in the year 1829. She measured 74 feet long, only 16 feet
wide, developed 60 horse-power, and was engaged in the trade between
England, Lisbon, and Gibraltar. But the first steamer which the newly
incorporated company dispatched to India, via the Cape of Good Hope,
was the _Hindostan_, a vessel of 1,800 tons, and 500 horse-power. She
began her voyage from England in September, 1842, and her departure was
a memorable event when we consider all that was destined to follow
therefrom, and how certainly it meant the ending of the careers of
those fine East India sailing ships which had been brought to such
a high state of perfection ere steam had appeared on the sea. The
_Hindostan_ was a three-masted vessel with a long bowsprit, “steeved”
at a big angle, setting yards on her fore-mast for fore-sail, topsail
and t’gallant, while her main and mizen were fore-and-aft rigged. She
is interesting as having not one but two funnels, the first being
placed very far forward, just abaft the fore-mast, whilst the other was
immediately in front of the main-mast. The distance between the two
funnels was great, for the purpose already indicated. The _Hindostan_
was followed by other steamers, and in 1844 the P. and O. Company
undertook a mail service between England and Alexandria, and so from
Suez to Ceylon, Calcutta, and China.
Of course, as yet, there was no Suez Canal, so that, in a manner
similar to that across the Isthmus of Panama, an overland route had
to be instituted for passengers, cargo, and mails across the Isthmus
of Suez. The P. and O. Company had, then, to land their passengers
at Alexandria, and just as canoes and mules had to be employed in
America, so boats and camels were requisitioned in Africa. But it was a
complicated journey, for this “overland” route was mostly an over-water
route. By means of the Mahmoudieh Canal the passengers and goods were
sent from Alexandria to the Nile, whence they proceeded by steamer to
Cairo. From there they travelled through the desert to Suez. Three
thousand camels had to be employed for transporting a single steamer’s
loading; every package had to be subjected to three separate transfers,
and the inconvenience was indeed considerable. But for nearly twenty
years this system continued.
Steam communication was inaugurated by the company with Australia in
1852, by means of a branch line from Singapore, and two years later the
service between Suez and Bombay was absorbed by the P. and O. Company.
This had been retained hitherto by the East India Company in order to
keep alive their navy. In 1869, came the opening of the Suez Canal,
and it was essentially the steamship and not the sailing ship which
brought this about, although the Suez Railway preceded the canal by ten
years. It is not generally known, perhaps, that a continuous waterway
had already existed long years before. In the times of the early
Egyptians there had been a canal which connected the Nile with the Red
Sea, so that ships could circumnavigate Africa and, returning by the
Mediterranean, could come out through the Nile into the Red Sea again.
But the Suez Canal had not been demanded so long as the steamship
remained undeveloped, and even for some time after the traffic to
Australia and New Zealand was principally carried on in those handsome
clipper-ships which were representative of the finest examples of the
sailing ship. It is only by means of the steamship that it is possible
to bring across so many thousands of miles the great quantities of
frozen meat and other perishable foods which now reach this country,
and the Suez Canal certainly assisted to make this possible. Not merely
did the steamship indirectly bring about the Canal, but the latter
increased the steamship’s sphere of usefulness.
About the time when the Suez Canal was opened the practical adoption
of the compound engine was taking place in the mercantile marine.
This idea had been introduced about 1856 by Messrs. Randolph Elder
and Company, and had been installed in the ships of the Pacific Steam
Navigation Company. In explanation of this system we may say at once
that its great advantage lay in the fact that it reduced the coal
consumption to just about half of what it had been hitherto in the
most economical engines. The principle is based on the fact that steam
possesses elastic properties which can be put to excellent use. Put
simply, the compound engine allows the steam to enter one cylinder
at high pressure, and, after it has moved the piston, escapes into
one (or more) cylinders of larger size, where it does its work by
direct expansion, and so much more work is done at little expense. The
expression “triple expansion,” which frequently confronts the reader
interesting himself in steamships, simply means that the steam is
expanded one stage further. Quadruple expansion is the same idea pushed
still another stage. When about twenty years ago the triple expansion
system was brought in, the steam pressures were increased from 125 lb.
to 160 lb. per square inch, and so the coal consumption was reduced
also. But the triple expansion had been preceded by the compound and
the low pressure engine, just as it was followed by the quadruple.
The opening of the Suez Canal was not devoid of side issues, for it
took away that monopoly which the P. and O. had enjoyed, since the
world’s steamships now poured in and began to go eastward and back
again. There was difficulty with the Post Office, who refused to allow
the Canal route for the conveyance of mails, on the ground that it was
not so suitable as the Egyptian Railway, and it was not until 1888,
when the charge for carrying the mails had been reduced by nearly
£100,000 a year, that the accelerated mails sent via Brindisi were
transferred to the Canal route, although the heavy mails had already
been carried by it. But the P. and O. were unlucky in another way. The
_Mooltan_, their first ship to be installed with the compound engine,
in 1860, had proved such a success that several other steamers of the
line were thus fitted, but the result was disappointing. Although it
was quite clear that this type of engine made for economy, yet it was
found unreliable, and in some cases had to be replaced by less complex
machinery.
We have now been able to see steamship lines established and sending
their fleets regularly with passengers, cargoes, and mails to the
uttermost ends of the earth, and we have been able to look ahead a
little so that we shall be free to concentrate our attention very
shortly on that centre of steamship activity the North Atlantic.
Between 1840 and 1860 the Cunard Company had practically a monopoly of
the Atlantic trade. For a time the American clippers hung on, but as
they had ousted the old brigs, even the fastest sailing vessels were
replaced by the steamship. From 1850 to 1858 there was, indeed, some
opposition from a steamship company called the Collins Line, which had
been subsidised by the American Government. This competition was very
keen, for both lines were compelled to put forth the best steamers they
could, but in the end the Collins Line withdrew from the contest.
[Illustration: DESIGNS FOR SCREW PROPELLERS PRIOR TO 1850.
_From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
But there was now another force coming in, which was to entirely alter
the character of the liner. Let us trace the evolution of the screw
propeller, which has completely banished the old-fashioned paddle-wheel
from its place in the ocean-going ship, and is rapidly having the
same effect in cross-Channel steamers. We saw that away back in 1804
John Stevens had crossed the Hudson in a little ship that was driven
along by a screw propeller, but it was not until the year 1836 that
the screw was re-introduced. In this year John Ericsson, a Swedish
engineer, obtained a patent for his invention which consisted of two
drums, on whose exteriors were seven helical blades, the interior of
each drum having the three blades which formed the radii of the circle.
Both these drums worked on one axis, and were placed behind the rudder,
and not in front of it as is the modern propeller. If the reader will
turn to the plate facing page 118, he will see this at the beginning of
the second line to the left. The drums were made to work in opposite
directions, the object being to avoid loss due to the rotary motion
already remaining in the water discharged by a single screw.
Ericsson applied this invention to the _Francis B. Ogden_, which was
built in 1837. She was 45 feet long, and was driven by a two-cylinder
steam engine with a boiler pressure of 50 lb. The result of the
experiment showed that she could tow a vessel of 630 tons burthen at 4½
knots against the tide. The following year a larger vessel, the _Robert
F. Stockton_, was built by Laird Brothers, and attained a speed of
thirteen knots on the Thames, with the tide in her favour. Afterwards
she crossed the Atlantic, but under canvas, and was turned into a tug
as the _New Jersey_, for work in New York waters. The illustration
facing page 120, which has been lent by Messrs. Cammell, Laird and
Company, Limited, of Birkenhead, shows her rigged as a topsail schooner
under sail and steam. Her measurements were 63.4 feet long, 10 feet
beam, 7 feet deep, with a register of 33 tons, and engines of 30
horsepower. Although she was the first screw steamer to cross the
Atlantic, yet her voyage is interesting rather as a fairly daring trip
of a small sailing ship than as proving the reliability of the screw
propeller.
But at the same time that Ericsson was working at his idea, Francis
Smith, an Englishman, who was afterwards knighted, was also engaged
at the same problem, though his method of solution was of a different
nature, as will be seen by a reference to the last illustration on the
first line of the plate facing page 118. His patent was granted in the
same year as Ericsson’s, and was tried with success the year after on
the Paddington Canal. Smith was a farmer at Hendon, and had already
experimented with a model driven by clockwork on a farm pond, just as
Fulton had carried out his early experiments with a clockwork model in
a tank. The next step was to repeat the experiment on a six-ton boat
which was driven by a steam engine, the propeller being, like those of
the modern aeroplanes, of wood. It was while thus experimenting that
an interesting accident happened, for about one-half of the screw thus
shown in the illustration was broken off, and to everyone’s surprise
the boat instantly began to leap forward at a quicker speed. Later the
boat was fitted with a screw having one turn instead of two, and made
of metal instead of wood, and in this small craft Smith cruised as far
as Folkestone. Her speed was 5½ knots.
[Illustration: THE “ROBERT F. STOCKTON” (1838).
_Photograph supplied by Messrs. Cammell, Laird & Co., Limited,
Birkenhead._]
[Illustration: THE “ARCHIMEDES” (1839).
_From a Contemporary Print._]
From these satisfactory results made by the six-tonner _Francis Smith_,
sufficient interest was aroused to form a syndicate to test the
proposition commercially, and to purchase Smith’s patents. The result
was that the _Archimedes_, of 240 tons, was launched from Limehouse in
November, 1838, and fitted with Smith’s screw. It must be recollected
that the same old obstinacy was still very much alive that had hindered
other inventions connected with the ship, and it was not until the
_Archimedes_ had toured round Great Britain, and steamed across the
Bay of Biscay and back without mishap, that people began to believe
in this new method of propulsion. To-day everyone knows how entirely
dominated by the screw the steamship now is, and that the paddle-wheel
belongs almost exclusively to the excursion passenger steamer.
Of course, Smith’s propeller was very different in expression from
the shape in use to-day, but the last word as to the ideal shape and
size of the screw has even yet to be said. It would be interesting to
detail all the attempts which have been made by different inventors to
deal with the screw, but their name is legion, and our space will not
permit. An idea, however, can be obtained of the various forms of screw
propellers patented in England before 1850 from the plate facing page
118, to which we have already called attention.
The lower illustration facing page 120, which is taken from a
contemporary aquatint, shows the _Archimedes_ on her voyage from
London to Portsmouth in the year 1839, when she attained a speed of
eight knots against both wind and tide. Facing page 122 is reproduced
a model of her stern framing before being planked up. As a further
test of this screw idea Wimshurst, who had built the _Archimedes_,
launched the _Novelty_ in 1839, a much larger vessel than her
predecessor. The _Novelty_ will be seen in the next illustration, and
in her we see the “screw” vanishing and becoming more assimilated to
the modern propeller. Originally the corkscrew shape entitled it to
be called a screw; but the evolution of time and experience has now
considerably altered this. It will be noticed that in the _Archimedes_
the screw is a little distance away from the stern-post, but as seen
in the _Novelty_ the propeller is put right close up against it. This
_Novelty_ was the first cargo steamer fitted with a screw, and made
her inaugural trading voyage from London to Constantinople and back
with entire success. She is interesting also as having been the first
ship to be fitted with an iron mast. This material was employed for
the mizen, the other masts were of wood; her rig was that of a barque.
For some years after the introduction of the screw, and so long as
sails were still retained as auxiliaries, there had to be some means of
overcoming the resistance of the screw when not in use and the ship was
proceeding under sail power. This was done either by fixing the blades
so that they caused the minimum drag, or by lifting the screw into
a well. The _Novelty_ lifted hers on deck over the quarter by means
of davits. This arrangement will also be seen in the illustration.
This idea is now obsolete, since sails are but rarely employed as
auxiliaries.
[Illustration: STERN OF THE “ARCHIMEDES.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “NOVELTY” (1839).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Now the introduction of the propeller was not so simple an event as
the reader might imagine. Ordinarily, one is tempted to argue that it
was merely a case of putting the power aft instead of at either side,
as in the use of the paddle-wheels. But, in fact, the introduction of
the screw opened up a new set of problems connected with ship design.
In the early days the design of a ship’s stern, both in the sailing
ship and the steamer, was badly neglected. Later on the improved lines
of the clipper sailing ships certainly did much to improve matters.
I referred at the beginning of the previous chapter to the manner in
which a vessel going ahead moves the water in which she floats, and how
the eddies round the stern impede her advance. Now when a propeller
revolves, much of its power is, even nowadays, wasted by what is called
“slip”--that is to say, by the yielding of the water so that the screw
does not progress to the full extent of its “pitch.” (The “pitch” of a
propeller is the amount of distance which is represented by one whole
turn of the thread. We could measure, for instance, the “pitch” of
a corkscrew by the distance which it would penetrate in a cork.) Even
after years of experiments and improvements the wake at the end of a
steamship tends to reduce the speed of the water past the propeller,
but when first the screw experiments were conducted the design of
the afterbody of a ship’s hull was so carelessly considered that the
“slip” of the propeller was considerable. There is also to be taken
into account the fact that by the rounding in of the “stream lines”
at the stern the vessel receives a pressure which helps her forward.
When, however, a propeller is added to a ship and set in motion it
disturbs this helping-forward movement, and in a ship fitted with only
a single screw this disturbance is even greater than in a twin-screw
steamer, because the latter has her propellers placed well out, away
from the hull. We need not here pursue the subject further; it is
enough now to show that every improvement in the steamship began a new
chapter of problems, introduced difficulties that could never have been
anticipated, which time and patience alone can solve satisfactorily.
And so we come to the construction of the _Great Britain_, of which the
model is illustrated opposite page 126. Let us recollect that it was
only in 1836 that the little six-ton launch _Francis Smith_ had been
built, and that it was only three years later that the _Archimedes_
showed by her successful voyages that the screw method of propulsion
was no fanciful, impracticable theory. In this same year, 1839, there
began to be built a still more wonderful screw steamer. The Great
Western Steamship Company had already been so satisfied with the _Great
Western_ that they believed that a far larger ship would be even
still more profitable. Therefore, Brunel was again consulted, and he
reported that already the furthest limit of long ships built of wood
was reached. There was no alternative but to construct her of iron,
for the reasons that I explained some time since. Iron had already
been used in ship-building for barges and also for steamboats, but
on no large scale. Aaron Manby, in conjunction with Charles Napier,
had built the first iron steamboat as far back as 1821. This ship had
been conveyed in sections from Horseley, where she was made, to the
Surrey Canal Dock, and there put together. After being tried on the
Thames on May 9th, 1822, she steamed away the next month with Napier in
command, and Manby as engineer, arriving in Paris on the eleventh of
the same month. She was thus not merely the first iron steamship, but
the first iron ship that ever put to sea. For the next twenty years she
continued to ply on the Seine. Napier was the financier of the attempt
to promote iron steamers on the French river, but by 1827 the slump in
the steamboat had taken an acute form, and he was left a comparatively
poor man. But in 1832 the _Lady Lansdowne_ was built by John Laird of
Birkenhead for the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and she was
the first iron steamer constructed with the intention of performing
sea-service. She was a paddle-boat, and measured 133 feet long, 17 feet
wide, with a tonnage of 148 and a nominal horse-power of 90. Later
still the _Robert F. Stockton_, to which we have alluded, was also of
iron.
But the _Great Britain_ was to be 322 feet long, with a beam of 50½
feet, and a displacement of 3,618 tons, with a cargo capacity of 1,200
tons, able to carry also 1,000 tons of coal, and 260 passengers.
To build such a big lump of a boat as this was to be a very grave
undertaking indeed. In fact, no contractor could be found who would
undertake the construction of the ship or her engines. She was
something out of the unknown; there were no data upon which to base
calculations. Brunel, therefore, made out the designs and the Great
Western Company with great daring proceeded to lay down plans for
building her themselves at Bristol. This was in 1839. It was intended
to give her the usual paddle-wheel engines, but the _Archimedes_
arrived at this port, and the success of her screw propulsion caused
Brunel to modify his designs so that the _Great Britain_ should become
not only the largest iron ship ever built, but the largest screw
steamer.
It was originally intended to name her the _Mammoth_, but she had
better been called the _White Elephant_, for all the use she was
afterwards to her owners. Her rig was like nothing afloat, and the
vocabulary of nautical terms contains no adequate description. From
our illustration it will be seen that she had six masts. On all except
the second she carried fore-and-aft canvas, but this second mast
carried two yards and square sails. Forward she had a bowsprit and
triangular headsails. In sail area alone she carried 1,700 yards of
canvas, and in length the hull was 100 feet in excess of the largest
line-of-battleship afloat. She was actually floated on July 19th,
1843, but it was not until December of the following year that she was
able to enter the river, owing to the delay in the alteration of the
dock. In the meantime her engines had been put aboard, and on July
26th, 1845, after trips to London and Liverpool, she left the latter
port with sixty passengers, and 600 tons of cargo for the Atlantic
run. She arrived in New York after a fifteen days’ passage, with an
average speed of 9¼ knots. On the homeward voyage her best day’s
run was 287 miles. The illustration facing page 126 is from a model
of her six-bladed propeller, with which originally she was fitted;
but on one of her voyages she had the misfortune to break this and
proceeded to Liverpool under her canvas. A new propeller was then
fitted which had but four blades, but later on she again resorted to
the original number. She continued her Atlantic voyages until 1846,
when she ran ashore off the Irish coast in Dundrum Bay during the month
of September, and remained for eleven months exposed to the terrible
wintry weather; but Brunel had a wooden breakwater, loaded with stones,
constructed round her, and she was eventually re-floated and taken to
Liverpool, and though her bottom was naturally considerably damaged,
yet the mere fact that she had been able to survive at all showed that
confidence might be placed in iron as a material for ship-building. But
by this time her owners had had enough of her, and she was sold for
less than one quarter of the £100,000 she had cost. After alterations
to her rig and her engines, she was employed in the Australian trade.
She was next relieved of her engines, and turned into a sailing vessel,
and then used as a coal-hulk off the Falkland Islands. Finally she was
broken up at Barrow.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT BRITAIN” (1843).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: PROPELLER OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
But apart from her size, the _Great Britain_ possessed other novel
features which are worthy of notice. We have already remarked that as
the length of ships increased, so did the longitudinal strain, and
new methods had to be devised in order to overcome this. The _Great
Britain_ was specially strengthened longitudinally, and furthermore she
was divided into five water-tight compartments. The original purpose
of transverse bulkheads was that if a vessel were holed by collision
or grounding, or--in the case of naval vessels--pierced by shell,
she might yet remain afloat. Nowadays they do more than this, for,
when carried up to the strong deck, they add to the longitudinal
strength of the ship. The _Great Britain_ also possessed another
novelty, in bilge keels, which extended for about one-third of her
length. The object of these, which are so well-known a feature of
modern steamships, was to lessen rolling. Her bulwarks consisted of
iron rails with netting running round the ship. Here, again, was a new
departure. In the older ships the heavy wooden bulwarks were a relic of
the days when the guns were sheltered behind them; but from the view
of seaworthiness they were really a false safety. If a heavy sea were
shipped, the water was held in and not allowed to get away easily; in
the case of the _Great Britain_ the water could escape just as quickly
as it came aboard.
Facing page 128 will be seen a reproduction of a model of the _Great
Britain’s_ engines, as originally placed in her before she ran ashore.
Steam was generated in a double-ended boiler. The nominal horse-power
was 1,000, but twice that amount could be obtained, and a speed of over
12 knots. There were four direct-acting cylinders--of which two will be
seen in the foreground of the illustration--placed as low down in the
ship as possible. The early engines which were used for the screw did
not drive the latter directly, and on reference to the illustration it
will be seen that in the centre of the crank shaft was a drum, which
was connected with another drum just below it on the propeller shaft by
means of four chains.
When referring to the side-lever engines in a former chapter, I drew
attention to the fact that in spite of their virtues they had the great
drawback of taking up a great deal of space. The second illustration
facing page 128 represents an attempt to overcome this disadvantage. As
will be seen on examining the lower part of the engines, the lever has
now become very small in size. It will be noticed that there are two
inverted cylinders, whose piston-rods are connected by a cross-head,
the latter being guided by lever parallel movement, and from it the
power was conveyed by means of a connecting rod to the crank on the
paddle-wheel shaft. The connecting rod can be seen between the two
cylinders in the illustration. These engines were made in 1843 for the
_Helen McGregor_, a paddle-steamer engaged in the Hull-Hamburg trade.
She was of 573 tons, and was one of the largest ships of her class.
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “GREAT BRITAIN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “HELEN McGREGOR.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
It was not until 1852 that the Cunard Company were so thoroughly
convinced of the capabilities of either iron ship-building or the
screw propeller as to give both a trial. Four iron screw steamers
were then built, and these were the first owned by this line which
were fitted with accommodation for emigrants. The next year six more
iron screw steamers were added, and connection formed with the chief
ports of the Mediterranean; and when the Crimean War broke out a
number of the Cunard ships were employed as transports. But from one
reason and another the screw propeller had not found general favour
among passengers. The vibration it caused, its unpleasant “racing”
in bad weather, and the new motion as compared to that of the old
paddle-wheel, allied to the usual obstinate temperament, showed that
the earlier type had still to be retained for a while. Following on the
medieval custom, the stern of these early steamships was still regarded
as the place of honour, and the saloon passengers were accordingly
placed abaft the machinery, which was amidships. Thus placed, the
traveller was doubtfully privileged, for the close proximity of the
propeller made life on shipboard exceedingly trying to the nerves,
and there were many who, having voyaged in the old ocean-going
sailing ships, looked back with mixed feelings to the longer but less
nerve-racking journeys. The strain on the early screw engine was
very considerable when the vessel was pitching fore and aft into the
Atlantic seas. Being of comparatively small size, its movements in such
circumstances were far more lively than in a modern, lengthy liner,
which is able to stretch over a longer span. Consequently, as the bow
came down into the sea and the stern rose out, the propeller was much
more prone to race wildly, and the gearing, such as we saw in the
engines of the _Great Britain_, was not infrequently unable to endure
the terrible strain to which it was put. It was for this reason that
the screw engines were afterwards made direct-acting.
The Cunard Company decided to build their next ship of iron, but with
paddle-wheels. This was the _Persia_, launched in 1856, a vessel of
3,300 tons burthen, with accommodation for 250 passengers. But she
was even surpassed by the _Scotia_, which was built in 1862, and is
interesting as being the last and the finest paddle-ship which was ever
made for their Atlantic service. An illustration of this vessel will
be found opposite page 130. She was fitted with the greatest luxury
of the time, to carry 275 cabin passengers, had seven water-tight
compartments, and a double bottom, so that even if she should have
had the bad luck to run ashore she would still most probably be able
to endure. Nowadays most steamships are fitted with this excellent
arrangement, which was first adopted in the _Great Eastern_, through
the ingenuity of Brunel, to which we shall refer presently. But the
_Scotia_ turned out to be also a fast boat, and materially altered
the time spent in crossing the Atlantic; she lowered the record to
just two hours under the nine days. Her engines were of the familiar
side-lever type, and were the finest examples of their kind that were
ever made. The cylinders were 100 feet in diameter, and steam at 20 lb.
pressure was supplied by eight boilers with forty furnaces, the speed
attained being 13½ knots per hour; her daily coal consumption was 159
tons. She could carry 1,800 tons of coal, and was exceedingly strongly
constructed. We can obtain some idea of those paddle-wheels shown in
the illustration when we remark that they were no less than 40 feet in
diameter. She was afterwards turned into a “telegraph” ship for use in
cable-laying, and her paddles changed for twin screws. It was not until
about 1896 that her water-tight bulkheads were put to practical use;
for as the result of an explosion on board of vapour from spirit her
bow was blown out of her, and the water began to rush in. Her collision
bulkhead was also damaged, but happily the second bulkhead saved the
ship from foundering.
[Illustration: THE “SCOTIA” (1862).
_From a Painting. By Permission of the Cunard Steamship Co._]
[Illustration: THE “PACIFIC” (1853).
_From a Painting in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Turning our attention away from the North Atlantic for a while, we
shall be able to see that steamships on other routes were now fast
passing from the olden types, when designers and builders were working
with only a minimum of data on which to base their achievements. We
have already referred to the highly important knowledge which was
gradually being obtained concerning the relations between the hull
of a ship and the water in which she is floated. One of the greatest
authorities on this subject about the middle of the last century was
John Scott Russell, who worked out a theory regarding the resistance
of the ship passing through the water. He it was who contended that
the hull should only move the water out of the way sufficiently to
allow the widest section of the ship to pass through, and to do this
in such a manner as should cause the least amount of friction and
disturbance of the water, so that, when the ship was gone by, the
particles of water should be restored to their original quietude. It is
important to bear in mind that the design of a ship must be made with
regard to the speed which it is intended to get out of her. Thus, it is
now a well-known principle that to give a ship highly powerful engines
so that she is forced beyond her proper speed only makes the waves
diverge from the sides and waste themselves instead of travelling with
the vessel and giving it a forward impetus.
The model of the hull in the illustration facing page 134 represents
the steamship _Victoria_, which was built in 1852 of iron, and designed
by those two great geniuses Brunel and Scott Russell for the Australian
Royal Mail Steam Navigation Company. Even the least practised eye on
looking at her lines can see that she possessed speed, and it was
this ship that gained the £500 prize offered by the Colonies for the
fastest voyage to Australia, her time from Gravesend to Adelaide
being sixty days, including two days’ delay at St. Vincent. The
_Victoria_ was designed as embodying the wave-line theory and for a
speed of ten knots. It is not necessary to examine this model many
moments before one realises how unmistakably the clumsy, ponderous
hulls so characteristic of earlier years were now being replaced by
sweet, graceful, non-resisting features. The hull of the _Victoria_
was separated into a dozen water-tight compartments and displaced
3,000 tons, her length being 261 feet, with a breadth of 38 feet, or
approximately seven beams to the length. She had a two-bladed screw,
and when this was not in use, and the _Victoria_ proceeded under
sail-power alone, the propeller was fixed vertically. Thus arranged,
the ship could sail 5½ knots, but it is interesting to remark that
when the screw was allowed to revolve freely the speed of the ship was
increased another couple of knots.
[Illustration: MAUDSLAY’S OSCILLATING ENGINE.
_From the Original in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: ENGINES OF THE “CANDIA.”
_From the Drawing in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
It was in this ship that a type of engine was fitted to which, so far,
we have not referred. This was the oscillating kind, and was destined
to become pretty well universal in paddle-ships, though not without
serious opposition at one time. This type had been patented as far
back as 1827, by Joseph Maudslay, and in the _Aaron Manby_, already
mentioned, the machinery was of an oscillating nature, for which
Manby had obtained a patent in 1821, but even farther back still--in
1785--William Murdoch had proposed the use of oscillating cylinders.
It is only fair to Maudslay to say that he had independently worked
out this arrangement, and so afforded yet another instance of the
possibility, which I have enunciated before, of different inventors
working at the same set of problems and bringing about a similar method
of solution. In the accompanying illustration is shown Maudslay’s
original oscillating engine. In this type the cylinders, instead of
being fixed, oscillate, and the necessity of the connecting rod is
dispensed with, for the cylinder is placed immediately underneath
the crank shaft, as a reference to the illustration will show. Each
cylinder is mounted on trunnions in the same manner as a cannon, being
placed at a point about the middle of the cylinder’s length, so that
it can swing, or oscillate, in such a way as to correspond with the
arc which the crank makes in its movement. Thus there are both weight
and valuable space saved. In the instance before us the condenser is
placed between the two cylinders; the central trunnions communicate
with the condenser, and the outside trunnions with the steam pipe.
But Maudslay’s engines did not at that time find the appreciation
which had been hoped for, and it was not until 1838, when they were
re-introduced by John Penn, that they received their full favour. We
shall return to the oscillating type when we come to consider the
_Great Eastern_. But we may remark that the interesting steamship
illustrated opposite page 130 was also provided with the oscillating
pattern. This is the packet steamer _Pacific_, which was built in 1853
for the Mediterranean service, and is another example of a vessel
constructed on the wave-line system. She was built of iron, and had
nine water-tight compartments.
The _Pacific_ was interesting in another feature, in that she
generated her steam in four tubular boilers, each of which had five
furnaces. Briefly the evolution of the boiler had been on this wise:
As originally fitted in the _Clermont_ and _Comet_ it was simply a
water-tank set in brickwork, and was nearly full of water, with the
fire outside, or, to use the expression generally employed, “externally
fired.” In those days the pressure of the steam was not greater than
the pressure of the air, which we saw to be 15 lb. to the square inch.
Then came a modification of this in which the furnace was placed inside
the boiler, the advantage being that, with the water all round, the
latter could be the more readily heated. This developed into the marine
“box” boiler, with internal flat-sided flues and furnaces. This type
continued to be fairly universal until about 1845, but the utmost
pressure of steam which these were capable of enduring was not above
35 lb. or thereabouts. But tubes instead of the flat flues began to be
introduced about the year 1850, owing to the suggestion of the Earl of
Dundonald, and these were to be of about double the diameter of those
which had been common to locomotives for the previous twenty years.
The pressure was soon raised considerably, but there was a strong
prejudice against using high pressures at sea, and the idea was not
encouraged.
[Illustration: THE “VICTORIA” (1852).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: THE “HIMALAYA” (1853).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: COASTING CARGO STEAMER (1855).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
In the same year that the _Pacific_ took the water was launched the
_Himalaya_, of which a beautiful little model is here illustrated. She
was built for the P. and O. Line. This fine ship-rigged steamship was
constructed of iron at Blackwall in 1853, and in the following year
was bought by the British Government and steamed away from Plymouth
with soldiers for the Crimea. She was of 4,690 tons displacement, and
in that year made a record run from Gibraltar at an average speed of
13½ knots. Originally she had been built for carrying both cargo and
passengers, but now she is, or was, ending her sphere of usefulness
as a coal hulk at Devonport. Her coal “endurance”--she could carry
1,200 tons--made her a valuable asset, and her six water-tight
bulkheads rendered her still more efficient. As will be seen from the
illustration, she had a single propeller, and this was driven by yet
another type of engine, which we have now to consider. We refer to the
vertical trunk engine. We shall be able to understand this better if we
examine the illustration facing page 132, which reproduces a drawing of
a similar type of engines installed in the P. and O. _Candia_, built a
year later than the _Himalaya_. In the trunk engine the piston-rod was
done away with, so that the connecting rod is attached directly to the
piston within a trunk or tube. This trunk passes through a steam-tight
stuffing-box in the cylinder cover, and is made wide enough to allow of
the lateral vibrations of the connecting rod inside. As long as steam
pressures did not exceed 35 lb. this proved to be satisfactory; but the
friction of the stuffing-boxes when they became of large dimensions
was a serious drawback. The _Candia_, for which these engines were
made, was a screw ship, and the cylinders were placed in a fore-and-aft
position. By means of this type of engine, employing trunks, the height
required was greatly lessened, and it was not necessary, as will
have been noticed was essential in the case of the _Great Britain’s_
engines, that part of them should come up through the deck. Thus, the
trunk type meant a saving of valuable space. Between the cylinders
were arranged the condensers, which were of the jet type. We may stop
to remind the reader that the condenser had been the invention of
Watt, who had improved on the Newcomen engine not merely by covering
over the top of the cylinder, but by condensing the exhausted steam in
a separate vessel, called a condenser. This condensation he brought
about by means of a jet of cold water, and the same principle was still
employed in the _Candia_. Condensation having taken place, the water
thus formed, together with any air which has got in, is then drawn off
by the air-pumps, which will be seen in the illustration to be worked
from an intermediate crank. It will be remarked on glancing at the left
of the picture that the _Candia’s_ crank shaft was connected with the
propeller shaft by means of spur gearing, which doubled the speed of
the screw, and so of the ship, but yet allowed the actual engines to
run comparatively slowly. This toothed wheel idea was a better method
than that employed in the _Great Britain’s_ engines, though it was
only just one stage better. There was a rooted objection in the early
days of the screw to running the engines at a great speed, and thus it
was only by some such means of gearing that the propeller was made to
revolve quickly. In the course of time, when a wider experience and
knowledge of engineering matters had been obtained, the gearing was
done away with and the engines became direct-acting, and so there
ensued far less friction, an absence of complication, and less expense
caused by gearing. At the same time the power obtained by the newer
method became more direct.
A customary apparatus nowadays adopted for steamships is the surface
condenser, and in the effort to increase the steam pressures this
has been a potent factor. But it had already been tried by Watt, by
David Napier, and re-introduced by Samuel Hall in 1831. The surface
condenser consists of a number of brass tubes about three quarters of
an inch in diameter, through which a stream of cold water circulates.
This necessarily keeps the pipes cool, and thus condenses the exhaust
steam which is thrown on to them from the cylinder; it is practically
a kind of tubular boiler. Instead of the jet, as in the older form of
condenser, it is the outside of the pipes which performs the office,
and the air-pump does its work as before. The condensed steam is now
available for feeding the boiler, and after being filtered the feed
pump draws it into a heater and thence it is led into the boiler once
more. If the reader will now turn to the illustration facing page 132
once more, he will see in the right hand of the picture that in the
_Candia_ the feed and bilge pumps were worked by small beams from an
eccentric.
By being able to use this water for the boilers a great economy was
effected, but in some of the P. and O. liners the boilers suffered
rather badly, since an injurious chemical action was set up owing to
the continuous return of the same water backwards and forwards from the
condenser. Nowadays the problems connected with the condenser have been
fully mastered, and the advantage of being able to use distilled water
is obvious; for one of the surest and quickest methods of bringing
about ruin is to use sea-water for the boiler, over which it will lay a
thick crust of salt.
The third illustration facing page 134 is interesting as representative
of a type of coasting steamer introduced about the year 1855. She shows
very well the simplest form of an iron ship propelled with a screw,
and evinces sufficient resemblance to the dying sailing ship before
the steamer had taken on a distinctive character of her own. In a
word, here is the steamship not in her crudity, as in the case of the
_Clermont_, but certainly in her elementary form without any of those
extra decks and houses which were still to come, and which to-day give
such distinct personality to the steamship. It will be seen that she
is just a flush-decked vessel, with a central protection amidships for
her engines and boilers. There is no forecastle, no poop, and in the
development of type she stands at the beginning. She was built for
the North Sea trade, and in bad weather must have been a singularly
wet boat. She was only of 677 tons gross register, and the absence
of any shelter would, when steaming to windward in a bad sea, cause
her to be swept from end to end. Similarly, her stern being equally
unprotected by either poop or quarter deck, she would be at the mercy
of a bad following sea. It was not surprising that this elementary type
soon gave way to those modifications that we shall see hereafter. In
design of her body this present model illustrates again Scott Russell’s
system of obtaining a capacious ship combined with the qualities of
slipping through the water with the minimum of resistance. This will be
especially noticeable by regarding the long straight middle body. She
was propelled by oscillating engines, and a two-bladed screw, having
also sails on her three masts.
And so we come to that famous monstrosity and wonder of her decade
the _Great Eastern_, some idea of whose appearance will be obtainable
from a model of her, illustrated herewith. Here again will be found a
repetition of a curious rig with the half-dozen masts, of which the
second and third carried yards and square-sails, and the others the
usual fore-and-aft sails set on the gaffs here seen. Although she
carried one triangular headsail, yet this was a staysail, and it is
significant that in this notable ship we find the disappearance of
the bowsprit, a change that is so characteristic of the modern liner.
Much more than either the _Great Western_ or the _Great Britain_ this
epoch-making monster stands for something altogether distinctive in
the evolution of the steamship. Frankly, in spite of her virtues, she
was a creature born out of due time. Historically, she exhibits in no
uncertain manner the extraordinary and almost incredible speed at which
the development of the steamship had progressed in fifty years, during
which period designers, ship-builders, and engineers had to feel their
way in the most cautious manner. No ship was built with such a length
as hers until the White Star _Oceanic_ in 1899; no vessel ever had such
a beam until the coming of the _Mauretania_ and _Lusitania_, and even
they only exceed the _Great Eastern’s_ extreme width by a mere five
feet. But it is half a century since the latter was built, when all the
experience that we possess now was not yet obtained.
[Illustration: THE “GREAT EASTERN” (1858).
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
Originally she had been named the _Leviathan_, and her beginning
happened as follows: Already the fact had come to be appreciated
that there was a superior advantage in a large steamer compared with
a ship of smaller size when voyages of considerable distances were
contemplated, and that, as already pointed out on a previous page,
length of hull, other things being equal, makes for speed. In
designing the _Great Eastern_ with an extreme length of 692 feet she
spanned over so large a number of wave-lengths that the possibility of
pitching was very decidedly reduced. But even in smooth water length
still means speed, and to take the case of a rowing “eight” and compare
it with a single “sculler,” we find that this law is well exemplified.
Without pursuing so interesting a point beyond our limitations of
subject, we might remark that quite recently an expert took the
trouble to work out data obtained from the performances respectively
of a Leander “eight” and a “sculler” as observed at a Henley Regatta.
Although the displacement of the eight-oared craft works out at about
240 pounds per rowing man, or including the coxswain at about 217
pounds, whilst the sculler only displaces 208 lb., yet for all that the
speed of the longer boat was found to be greater in the proportion as
9.75 knots are to 8.12 knots, and this, bear in mind, while the eight
is carrying a ninth man who contributes nothing to the speed of the
craft. We mention this as a simple example of that important fact of
the superiority of length in ship-making, an importance that is now
exhibited so clearly in the enormous lengths of the latest liners.
Brunel, who had already broken steamship records by his previous daring
essays, suggested to the Eastern Navigation Company the building
of such a ship as would be able to carry an unheard-of number of
passengers, a very large amount of cargo, and at the same time be
capable of steaming all the way to Australia without having to coal on
the voyage. These virtues, together with her speed of fifteen knots,
would, it was thought, enable her to attract such a large amount of
business that she would handsomely repay her owners. The contract was
eventually given to Scott Russell’s firm, who were entrusted with the
building of the ship, together with the paddle-wheel engines. The screw
engines were made by Messrs. James Watt and Co., so that three of the
names most prominently connected with the history of the steamship
were especially associated with the construction of this leviathan.
Brunel was assisted in the designing by Scott Russell, and the latter’s
wave-line principle was followed. The building of the ship began on
the 1st of May, 1854, and on the last day of January, 1858, she was
sent into the water at Millwall. But this was not done without some
difficulty. The first attempt to launch this enormous mass of 12,000
tons was unsuccessful. Her weight was resting on a couple of gigantic
cradles which were to slide down an incline to the water; but they
only moved a few feet and then stopped. Finally, three months after
the first effort, she was slowly persuaded into the water, side-ways,
by hydraulic machinery. Instead of running her on the route for which
she had been built, where her exceptional abilities might have been
utilised, she was put to compete with the steamships already running on
the Atlantic, for which short voyage she was not specially suitable,
and financially she spelt ruin all round. First, the attempts to launch
her, and the ensuing delay cost £120,000 and the company, unable to
bear the expense, was wound up. Then the new company which bought her
for £160,000 were ill-advised to employ her in the American trade, for
neither as a passenger ship nor as a cargo carrier could she be made to
pay her way. Subsequently she was used in laying the Atlantic cable,
and was handed over to the ship-breakers in 1888, who brought her
career to an end during the next couple of years.
[Illustration: PADDLE ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
[Illustration: SCREW ENGINES OF THE “GREAT EASTERN.”
_From the Model in the Victoria and Albert Museum._]
The _Great Eastern_ was, in accordance with Brunel’s idea, propelled
by both paddle-wheels and a screw. An illustration is here given of a
model of her paddle-engines, which were of the oscillating type. It
will be borne in mind that the leading advantages of this type lay in
the fact of their comparative lightness in weight, and their economy
as regards space. If the reader will just glance at the illustration
which faces page 138 of the _Great Eastern’s_ longitudinal section, he
will be able to see what little room these engines actually needed.
It will be noticed in her paddle-engines that each of two cylinders
drove a crank, the cylinders being placed vertically but at an inclined
angle. Each paddle-wheel could, if desired, be driven separately. The
condensers were of the jet type, and there were two air-pumps, which
were driven by a single crank in the middle of the paddle shaft. The
paddle-wheels were tremendous, weighing ninety tons each, and measuring
fifty-six feet in diameter. But the _Great Eastern_ amply proved how
unsuitable the paddle-wheel was for ocean work. Every time the big
monster rolled in a bad sea a great strain was put on the machinery;
these vast projections, too, offered not merely increased windage and
accentuated the ship’s general unwieldiness, but afforded a fine target
for the Atlantic waves to smash against. Once the _Great Eastern_,
during a gale in the year 1861, suffered pretty badly in this respect,
when the paddle-wheels were destroyed. She was afterwards fitted with
wheels five feet smaller in diameter, and of greater strength.
In the next illustration will be seen a model of her screw engines,
whose position in the ship will be found on referring again to the
longitudinal section. These were, it will be noticed, no longer of that
early type which needed gearing, but worked directly, the cylinders
being placed horizontally. The number of cylinders was four, each
of which had two piston-rods, and steam was supplied by half a dozen
double-ended tubular boilers of the rectangular or “box” type. For the
benefit of the non-technical reader we may explain that the object seen
in the foreground of the picture, extending from the centre to the
right-hand side, is what is commonly called the “link motion gear,”
which is employed for reversing the engines when it is required to
send the ship astern. This controls the slide valves which allow the
steam to enter the cylinders. The principle of the link motion is
just this: two eccentrics are placed side by side on the shaft, but
opposite to each other. Each of them is connected by a rod to one end
of the “link,” which is curved in shape. In this illustration it will
be easily recognised at the right-hand side in the front. Now, as
the link is moved up or down, so it controls the eccentric. If it is
lowered, for instance, then one eccentric only is working the valve,
but if the link is raised the other eccentric will control the valve,
and so the latter will work in the opposite direction to which it did
before. Thus, by using one eccentric, steam enters the cylinder at one
end first, while if the other eccentric is employed steam will enter
first at the other. Thus it becomes possible to make the engine turn in
whichever direction is desired by regulating the end of the cylinder by
which the steam shall first enter.
The _Great Eastern’s_ propeller had four blades, and an interesting
arrangement was adopted so that when the ship was proceeding by means
of her paddles, sails, or both, the screw propeller was kept revolving
by means of two auxiliary engines in order that the speed of the ship
through the water might not be diminished by the drag of the screw.
Actual results showed that this ship could do her fifteen knots with
screw and paddles, but her average speed was one knot less. Under screw
alone she could do nine; under paddle power alone she did seven and
a quarter. It will thus be noticed that when using both paddles and
screw she ought to have done better, and this failing is explained by
asserting that the paddle-wheels and the screw caused a resistance too
great for their respective engines.
The construction of this ship calls for more space than we can here
devote thereto, but some of the important features may be enumerated.
She was of great strength longitudinally, and from the keel to the
water-line her hull was double. The longitudinal bulkheads extended
to the topmost deck, and materially added to her strength, while the
inner skin just mentioned not merely gave added strength, but was an
extension of the double-bottom idea, and so increased her chances in
case of collision. Furthermore, the space between the two skins was
available for water ballast, so as to preserve the trim of the ship as
she neared the end of her voyage, and her coal bunkers were becoming
lightened. Transversely, also, the ship was divided by iron bulkheads
into water-tight compartments in addition to the longitudinal ones. The
iron plates out of which the ship’s skin was made varied from a half to
three-quarters of an inch thick. The _Great Eastern_ was able to give
the world a very convincing proof of the utility of the double bottom,
for she had the bad luck to run on a rock, and although more than a
hundred feet of her outer hull was afterwards found to be damaged, yet
she was able to complete her voyage without the water getting through
into her hull proper.
For steering so large a vessel as the _Great Eastern_ the usual type
of steering-wheel would clearly have entailed the expenditure of very
considerable physical effort; so, for the first time, was introduced in
this ship a steam steering gear, an example that is nowadays followed
by almost all steamers of any size, including even excursion boats.
This arrangement necessitates the use of a miniature steam engine, the
two cylinders working cranks, and the shaft causing the drum containing
the steering chain to revolve. Any movement of the steering wheel
admits steam, and as soon as the steersman ceases to turn his wheel so
quickly does the little engine cease to work.
We have no desire to try the patience of the reader by presenting
a mass of statistics, but those who delight in comparisons may be
interested to learn how the _Great Eastern_ would appear if put
alongside the _Mauretania_. The latter displaces 40,000 tons, the
_Great Eastern_ displaced 32,000. The big Cunarder is 790 feet long,
between perpendiculars, while the _Great Eastern_ was 680 feet. The
latter possessed a combined horse-power--paddle and screw engines--of
11,600, while the Cunarder has 70,000. And so we could continue. But
now that we have seen to what unheard-of limits the steamship had shown
herself capable of reaching by the end of the sixth decade in the
nineteenth century--how she had, step by step, grown from moderation to
exaggeration--let us now examine her progress during the next twenty
years, in which she passed through her transition period.