CHAPTER XII

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF STEAM-POWER Tugs -- Cargo-boats -- Floating Docks -- Ferries -- Icebreakers -- Yachts -- Eccentricities of Design -- Conclusion Not the least important of the types of steamers which throng the ports of the world--or which used to do so, for their number is decreasing--is the tugboat. Up to a few years ago it played a most important part in the work of a port; every sailing ship entering port usually engaged the services of a tug; many ports, like that of London, could not be entered at all by a large sailing ship without the services of “a fair wind ahead,” as sailors often call the tug, and in the waters outside the Port of London the tugboats found one of the best “pitches” in their business. To be towed safely into port might mean a saving of many days in avoiding the waiting for a wind. The tug was equally useful to a ship leaving port, as she might not only tow her into the open sea, but might even take her right out of sight of land altogether, in helping her along until a favourable slant of wind was met. At ports like Liverpool sailing-ship masters often, when wind and tide were favourable, brought their ships into port under full sail without a tug, though probably three or four of them kept her company in the hope that their services would be required, as they generally were when the time came to enter dock. Nowadays sailing ships are few in number and are becoming fewer, and steamers seldom require aid. They enter and leave port under their own steam and even at times dispense with a tug when passing through the dock entrance, their own steam or a steam capstan ashore being found sufficient. But a certain amount of towing has still to be done, and the tug is then able to prove herself indispensable. She has often to tow a ship from one coast port to another, while for rescue work on the coast their services mean all the difference between success and failure. A lifeboat is towed to a wreck or vessel in danger. The tug, which has perhaps been several hours fighting her way forward against a howling gale and a terrific sea which threatens to overwhelm her, then stands by, and a paragraph in the papers to that effect is about all the recognition she gets, yet the perils undergone by the men on the tug are no less real than those of the lifeboatmen. Year in and year out the tugs pursue their calling, and it must indeed be bad weather that will induce a tugboat captain to seek the shelter of a harbour if his bunkers are fairly full and he sees a chance of doing business. The feats performed by some tugs are extraordinary. They will undertake a voyage of a few thousand miles as serenely as one of as many yards. Cleopatra’s needle, in its strange cylinder ship, was towed to this country, after being lost adrift in the Bay of Biscay, by a well-known London tug. Among the most remarkable recent feats are the towing of immense unwieldy floating docks from this country to South American west-coast ports; it is not too much to say that a tug-owner will cheerfully undertake to tow anything that will float from any one seaport to any other. The cargo steamer until ten or fifteen years ago possessed no special features. It was simply a big box carrying propelling machinery and as much cargo as possible on the smallest attainable registered tonnage. Such vessels were usually loaded and discharged by the necessary machinery on the quay side, while if the transfer of cargo had to be to or from barges alongside, the operation was likely to be tediously performed by means of a derrick or two, or a gaff with tackle that might or might not be worked by a steam-winch. The increasing size of vessels and the use of steel for steamer building rendered imperative the adoption of faster methods, and the demands for special steamers adapted for particular trades brought about the development in cargo steamers of special types. These types have to a very large extent taken the trade away from the steamer of the “tramp” class, which wandered from port to port taking cargoes of anything or everything from anywhere to anywhere. They were usually slow and uncomfortable boats and the complaints made as to the condition of some of them were fully justified. The demand for better cargo accommodation was met by the supply of vessels of various types which are a tremendous advance upon the old “tramp,” and their advent compelled the builders of ordinary cargo carriers to produce a better and larger steamer in every way, and fitted with modern appliances for the rapid and satisfactory handling of cargo. The cargo “tramps,” built about 1902, were on an average about 350 feet long, 2800 tons gross and 4000 tons dead weight. In build they were of the poop, bridge, and forecastle deck type with main deck below the upper deck, and fitted with double bottoms. The appliances for working cargo are extraordinarily complete and effective. To each hatch there are usually two winches and two derricks, having 5 tons lift each, with, as a rule, a heavy derrick capable of lifting from 20 to 30 tons; the last is portable, so that it can be used at either of the two main hatches. Cathead davits have been dispensed with as, with stockless anchors, they are not required owing to the anchors stowing up the hawse pipes. Officers, &c., are berthed in deckhouses built on the bridge deck, leaving the bridge ’tween deck clear for cargo. Electric light and steam-heating are fitted to all rooms, advantages not enjoyed by older boats. About the year 1904 the shelter-deck type reached its present stage of perfection, the advantage of this type being increased cargo capacity on a small net tonnage. The accommodation of officers and engineers is fitted in midship deckhouses and side houses. Much more attention is now paid to the ventilation of the holds and ’tween decks, more especially in coal-carriers, where efficient ventilation is of the highest importance. The adoption, within very recent years, of wide-spaced pillars in holds and ’tween decks has greatly improved the facilities for stowage of large cargo. The four desiderata of a modern cargo-boat are that she should have a low registered tonnage in comparison with her capacity, ample water-ballast tanks, large hatchways, and holds as free from obstruction as possible. Three or four methods are practised by builders for attaining these objects, and every builder has made modifications of them as time has shown the necessity of the changes to meet varying trade conditions. The principal types of cargo vessels are the turret, trunk, cantilever, and side tank. The earlier modern ocean-going steamers were usually flush-decked. This left the machinery openings bare in the deck, so a bridge was added for their protection, and the flush deck was further encroached upon by the addition of a forecastle and poop. In some cases the quarter deck was raised, which was an awkward arrangement on account of the change it necessitated in the structure and framing, and in others the bridge and poop were joined. What is sometimes called the “three island” type, a very appropriate name in rough weather when the steamer takes a sea on board, came into great favour; it consists of a forecastle, bridge, and poop, and many vessels of considerable size have been built in that style. The cattle trade was responsible for some important changes in design, the “wells” where the cattle are carried being given iron and steel shelters, which thus form the shelter decks, a type of light deck introduced into the superstructure of most ocean-going steamers. The secret of the turret steamer is strength without unnecessary weight. Every ton of steel that can be kept out of a ship without reducing her strength adds a ton to her carrying capacity. This object is partly achieved in the turret steamer by the large amount of flanging adopted in the construction of these vessels. This is shown in the whole of the sheer strake and stringer plates, in the deck and frames of the cellular bottom work, and with great success in the joggled plating of the hull. Since 1895, when the Doxfords introduced a new method of rolling ships’ plates with joggled edges, they have built all their vessels under this system, making “packing” unnecessary. The turret gives longitudinal strength in the hull and leaves the hold clear. The strength is so great that in a steamer in which, by the substitution of deep for ordinary frames, all internal supports, beams, and girders are dispensed with, a clear hold is obtained. The firm claims that 58 cubic feet per ton dead weight under hatches is secured against 52 to 54 cubic feet per ton in the ordinary type. Thus the turret carries more on a given displacement, and having a lower registered tonnage, can earn more freight and save expenses. There are several designs of turret steamers adapted to different trades. Their suitability for bulk cargo, such as coal, or for large and heavy packages, is evident, while other types are equally suitable as passenger steamers, not a few lines having adopted them. Another advantage is that deck cargoes of wood can be carried with perfect safety on the turrets. Some of the cargo-boats designed for the ore and coal trade have their machinery right aft, and their holds are absolutely clear of obstruction of any kind whatever. Many of these are mastless but are fitted with twin derricks, a 10,000-ton boat carrying as many as seven pairs. The first of the mastless type was the _Teucer_. Convention fixed the depth of hold at about 15 feet, but now a depth of 26 feet and more is becoming fairly common. All cargo vessels are built on the box-girder system, which ensures great strength and capacity, and permits of enormous hatchways, and marine engineers have solved the problem of providing greater speed without additional expense. Messrs. Doxford, in their latest attempt to solve the problem of the easily-shifting cargo in bulk, proposed that vessels intended for this trade should have inner upright walls fitted some distance from the hull, and so arranged that when the vessel is heeled over within the usual range of inclinations of a vessel at sea, the weight of the cargo and the buoyancy create a restoring couple in all conditions of loading. The spaces between the cargo-hold and the outer shell may be left empty or used for water-ballast as required. In some instances the bottom is reduced in depth as much as the loading regulations will allow. Among the more notable features of recent years in cargo-boats specially adapted for the coal, iron ore, and other dead-weight trades is the patent cantilever framed type of steamer built by Sir Raylton Dixon and Co., Ltd., Cleveland Dockyard, Middlesbrough, on the Harroway and Dixon patents. This type of boat has the advantage of having totally unobstructed holds with very large hatchways and an additional 75 per cent. water-ballast, which is placed in the tanks inside the cantilever construction at the top of the holds under the deck. In these steamers the space on either side and under the decks is used for water-ballast, which is carried in triangular tanks at either side of the vessel, immediately beneath the main deck. The tanks extend from the coamings to the sides of the ship, the greatest side of the triangle being towards the cargo and supported by the cantilever framing; the tank framing and plating increase the strength of the hull materially. The sloping topsides thus formed prevent bulk cargo shifting. An advantage to the owner is that the tanks are exempt from tonnage measurement. When these tanks are filled with water and also the lower and peak tanks the vessel is seaworthy even if the cargo-space is empty. This additional water-ballast has the special merit of immersing the ship deeper when in ballast only, consequently giving more power to the propeller and rendering the ship more manageable when light, as well as supplying unique security in case of damage, for when one of these boats is loaded and the topside tanks are empty, they correspond to the air tanks of a lifeboat and thus prevent the ship from sinking. These vessels in some cases have been fitted with shelter decks right fore and aft for the carriage of cattle and horses, and indeed would be suitable for passenger service, for which the very easy rolling movement would be a great recommendation. This type of vessel has been on the market for about four years and already some 200,000 tons have been built. One of the largest steamers built on this plan is the _Echunga_, 405 feet long, 56 feet beam, and 28 feet 8 inches moulded depth. She was built in 1908 for the Adelaide Steamship Company. Her net register is 2245 tons, her dead-weight capacity 8400 tons, and her measurement 11,000 tons. Her topside tanks contain 1350 tons, and her total water-ballast is 3200 tons. In the steamers built by Messrs. William Gray and Co., Ltd., of West Hartlepool, water-ballast is carried not only in the double bottoms but in side tanks, the inner skin of the double bottoms being carried a considerable distance up the sides. A hull within a hull is thus formed, the intervening space being used as water-ballast tanks. Not the least advantage is the great additional strength the ship is given. The trunk system of shipbuilding adopted by Messrs. Ropner and Sons, Ltd., of Stockton-on-Tees, differs from the turret by having a double wall on each side, and has not the rounded turret base. The steamer _Thor_, built for a Norwegian owner, has only one hold, no less than 250 feet in length, the engines being placed aft. Messrs. R. Craggs and Sons, Ltd., of Middlesbrough, have made a speciality of building tankers, and were the designers and contractors for the first ocean steamer to load oil in bulk. Their stringerless system of construction is, they claim, the last word in transverse framing, and has numerous advantages for single-deck vessels. During the last three years three distinct innovations in steam-ship construction have been made. All three are of a revolutionary character, and two are likely to have no small influence upon the construction of both passenger and cargo steamers, while the third is of great importance for the rapid loading and discharging of coal and ore cargoes. The first of these is the Isherwood system of longitudinal ship construction, in which the transverse frame as ordinarily understood is dispensed with, but deep transverse web frames are placed at intervals of 15 to 18 feet apart and extending right round the ship, forming both frame and beam together. These frames are intersected by longitudinal frames consisting of sections of convenient form, preferably bulb angles, spaced about 20 to 30 inches apart, just as transverse frames are under the ordinary system. The fore and aft frames are fitted beneath the deck also, and are spaced from 30 to 50 inches apart. In the double bottom the fore and aft girders are formed of plates and angles. The first general cargo vessel on this plan was the _Craster Hall_, launched in February 1908 by Messrs. William Hamilton and Co., Ltd., Port Glasgow. Her length is 392 feet 6 inches; breadth, 50 feet; depth, 29 feet to the upper deck; dead weight, 7300 tons. [Illustration: THE “MONITORIA.”] [Illustration: THE “IROQUOIS” AND THE “NAVAHOE.”] Two oil-tankers, the _Paul Paix_ and _Gascony_, have been built by Messrs. Craggs and Sons on this system. One of them grounded off Calais with a cargo of oil or benzine on board, and on being dry-docked for examination was found to have no damage to her plates whatever. All the steamers built on the Isherwood plan have a marked absence of vibration even when running light. The corrugated steam-ship _Monitoria_, launched in the summer of 1909 by Messrs. Osbourne Graham and Co., Sunderland, to the order of the Ericsson Shipping Company of Newcastle-on-Tyne, is another departure from accepted ideas. She is an ordinary “tramp” steamer so far as dimensions and engine-power go; her only difference, and it is an important one, is that she has two corrugations running along each side between bilge and load water-line, and extending from the turn of the bow to the turn of the quarter. These corrugations do not project very greatly, but according to the inventor, they so affect the stream and wave action around and under the vessel that a source of wasted energy is prevented, and more power becomes available for propulsion. The _Monitoria’s_ dimensions are: length, 288 feet 6 inches over all; breadth, 39 feet 10¹⁄₂ inches; the breadth over the corrugations is nearly 42 feet. The space for bulk cargoes is greater than on her sister ships by the cubic contents of the corrugations, but the tonnages remain unaltered. As a sea-going ship it was found that the corrugations made her much steadier, acting as though they were bilge keels, and that the coal consumption was less, notwithstanding that she made faster time than her sister vessels under precisely similar conditions. [Illustration: THE “MONITORIA”: TRANSVERSE SECTION.] The third innovation is the application of the belt-conveyor principle to a collier. The steamer _Pallion_, in which the machinery is installed, is equipped throughout with twin belt conveyors which, travelling fore and aft the vessel in a space under the cargo, carry the cargo towards the stern, whence it is carried on other belts at the front of the poop for delivery. The latter belts are carried on swivel booms which can be raised or lowered or moved sideways, so that the cargo is delivered direct by the belts into railway trucks on the quay or into barges, and the operation can be conducted at the rate of 250 tons an hour on each side of the vessel simultaneously. Under this system no shoots are used, and there is no handling of the coal. The _Pallion_ requires only about six hours to discharge a full cargo with six men, as against over a hundred men and eleven hours in the ordinary way. Her water-ballast tanks can be emptied or filled as fast as the cargo is placed in her or taken out. She was built by the Doxford firm at Sunderland for a Newcastle Shipping Company. The carrying of petroleum in bulk has spread enormously of late years in both steamers and sailing vessels specially designed for the purpose. In all such vessels the method of the subdivision of the holds into tanks is of the greatest importance, together with that of ventilation, and every builder and owner of such vessels has his own theories as to the best means to be adopted. A later type of tanker has the engines astern. A further innovation in this class of steamer is to fit them for burning oil fuel, the two big tankers _Oberon_ and _Trinculo_ having had the necessary installation placed in them last year at Smith’s Dock, North Shields, sometimes called “the home of tank-steamer repairing work.” An economical method of transporting oil in bulk across the Atlantic is adopted in the case of the steamer _Iroquois_, which herself carries about 10,000 tons of oil in bulk, and also tows with her the sailing barge _Navahoe_, carrying an equal quantity, one set of engines thus doing duty for both cargoes. The _Navahoe_ is the largest sailing ship in the world, is schooner-rigged on all her six masts, and is able to make her way to port in case she becomes separated from her consort. The floating dock is one of the most interesting of the many developments in connection with the naval and mercantile marine of the second half of the nineteenth century. Like all innovations, floating docks were received with derision. Now they have proved their worth, but circumstances are easily conceivable in which all the marvels they have already accomplished will be far eclipsed by what they may be called upon to do. In the case of a naval battle, for instance, it may be a matter of impossibility for a crippled warship to enter a dry dock, or even to get to one; but a floating dock can be sent to meet the injured warrior and possibly save it from going to the bottom altogether. The floating dock is a sort of raft, and the first man who ever hauled a boat from the water upon another boat or raft to repair, it started the idea of the floating dock. The first real floating dock, as the term is now understood, was probably that which was improvised in the Baltic Sea, so tradition says, by the skipper of a vessel which had sustained some damage in those waters. He bought an old hulk, removed the stern, and in its place constructed a flap gate. His vessel was then floated into the hulk, the flap gate was closed and the water pumped out. Floating docks of this type were almost the only kind known up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, and are in use to-day at some ports for small yachts, fishing-boats, and vessels of similar dimensions. With the growing size of vessels, greater docking facilities became necessary, and, as the commerce of the world increased and ports were developed, demands arose for docking accommodation which could not always be met, owing in some cases to financial difficulties, and in others to the engineering difficulties connected with the localities. As a solution of the problem, the floating dock, as it is known to-day, was invented. In spite of the opposition with which it was greeted, the new contrivance held its own, and its merits became generally recognised. The difficulties and the cost of constructing dry docks are very great, and the time taken in the work may run into years; one dock, indeed, is stated to have taken fifteen years to complete. As an instance of rapidity of floating-dock construction, the Vulcan Company of Stettin required a dock 510 feet long and of 11,000 tons lifting power at short notice. The complete dock with all machinery and fittings was launched within seven and a half months, and within eight months and thirteen days of the inception of the project, the dock, after being towed across the North Sea and moored in place at its site, was sunk ready to receive its first ship. The Havana dock was delivered at Havana within eleven months after the signing of the contract for its construction; the actual time expended on it, dating from the day the first plate was laid until the complete dock was launched, was six months and a day. Both these docks are of over 10,000 tons lifting power. How long would it have taken to excavate and build graving docks capable of receiving vessels of the size that these docks can accommodate? No dry dock can take a vessel larger than itself, and in reckoning the dimensions of a dock for receiving purposes it must be remembered that its cill is a fixture, that the width of the entrance at the cill must not be made greater than the strength of the structure will permit, and that though a dock may in other respects be able to receive a vessel it cannot do so if that vessel through any mishap should draw as much water as that at depth of cill, or if in heeling over, its bilges should be wider than the width of the dock entrance. None of these drawbacks apply to the floating dock. These immense modern structures of steel and iron can receive vessels longer than themselves, and in the case of the off-shore docks, can receive vessels wider than themselves. Should a vessel be heavily down by the head or stern, a floating dock can be tilted to lift it, and should the vessel be heeling over, the dock itself can be inclined so that it shall receive it without difficulty. Yet another advantage is that the floating dock can be used in any kind of ordinary weather. Lying at its moorings it is head on to wind and sea. The amount of surface it opposes to the direct action of wind and sea is comparatively slight. The very massiveness of its structure reduces longitudinal and lateral motion to a minimum, especially when submerged. Even with a fairly heavy sea running, a damaged and leaking vessel can be brought upon the dock where its weight, added to that of the dock itself, makes the combined structure additionally stiff, so that the necessary repairs can be undertaken in safety as soon as the vessel is lifted, and with as much ease as if the dock and its burden were in still water. Floating docks also can be used at any state of the tide, but he would be a rash man who attempted to warp a vessel into an ordinary dry dock with the tide running past the entrance with any degree of strength. [Illustration: OLD FLOATING DOCK AT ROTHERHITHE, circa 1800.] The earliest type of the modern floating dock is that known as the box dock. It consists of a pontoon divided into cells or compartments, and having on either side a large wall also divided into compartments arranged in tiers, the ends of the structure between the walls being open. The earliest of these docks were made of wood, and compared with those of later date were of small dimensions. One of the most noteworthy wooden docks was that at Rangoon, launched in February 1866, and having a length of 300 feet, with a breadth of 90 feet, and an inside breadth of 70 feet, and able to take vessels drawing from 15 to 16 feet of water. There is also at Altona a wooden floating dock built in 1868 and still in active use; it is 138 feet in length, and can lift vessels up to 420 tons register. The early floating docks were usually in transverse section like the capital letter =[U]=, and followed fairly closely the form of the round-bottomed ships of the time. As the girder principle, however, became introduced in shipbuilding it was recognised that floating docks must be constructed approximating to that shape, and modern floating docks are now built rectangular in transverse section, though in constructional details this form is a modification of the =[U]= shape. Floating docks themselves are in occasional need of repair, and when it was found that they could be constructed of a greater size than any then existing dry dock, it being customary to dry dock them for repair, the necessity arose of devising a means whereby the repairs could be made without taking the floating dock out of the water. Sometimes a dock can be tilted endways or sideways as occasion requires, for a portion of its under-water surface to be exposed, but there is obviously a limit to this operation and to the effectiveness with which work under these conditions can be carried out. This difficulty was met by constructing docks on the sectional principle, whereby any two sections of a floating dock constructed in three sections can lift the other one; while with off-shore docks, which are usually built in two sections, either can lift the other. An attempt to careen the old =[U]=-shaped Bermuda dock nearly capsized her altogether. One of the earliest--if indeed not the earliest--of self-docking double-sided docks is that associated with the name of Mr. Rennie, and now generally known as the Rennie type, or, in an attempt made at uniform classification of self-docking docks by Messrs. Clark and Standfield, who probably have had greater experience of floating-dock designing than any other firm in the world, the “sectional pontoon” dock. This is an extremely simple form of dock, consisting of a series of similar pontoons connected together into a whole by the walls or side girders, which run along each side on top of the pontoon, to which they are attached by bolts. In self-docking, any particular pontoon can be unbolted from underneath the walls, allowed to sink slightly, and then be drawn out sideways, turned half round, and lifted on the rest of the dock. The type is also very suitable for erection abroad, for the pontoons can be built and launched separately, and, being but light structures, require no expensive launching slips, whilst the side walls can be erected on top of the pontoons after they are afloat.[100] [100] “Modern Floating Docks,” by Lyonel Edwin Clark, M.I.N.A. The first Bermuda Dock, launched at North Woolwich by Messrs. Campbell, Johnstone and Co., in September 1868, was the largest built up to that time, and was ordered by the Admiralty for the use of British ships in the West Indian Squadron. It was 381 feet in length, 123 feet 9 inches in extreme breadth, and had a total depth of 74 feet 5 inches. Caissons enclosed a dock space of 333 feet by 83 feet 9 inches in width, capable of receiving a vessel of 3000 tons. The section of the dock is of =[U]= form throughout, though for convenience of towing, a tapered bow of wood was added, and remained until it rotted off at Bermuda. The dock was designed by Mr. Campbell. The sides consisted of a cellular space 20 feet in width, and midway between the inner and outer skin was a water-tight bulkhead, running the whole length of the structure. Each side was subdivided by longitudinal bulkheads into three compartments, named from the bottom, the “air,” “balance” and “load” chambers, and was further subdivided into twenty-four water-tight cells. The dock was fitted with four steam engines and pumps on each side. Hitherto all floating docks had been built in sections, shipped to their destinations and erected there. The Bermuda dock, however, was towed there, experimentally, and so successfully was the work accomplished that the towing of floating docks across the ocean has become the rule, and some wonderful feats of towing have been performed. This dock, becoming unequal to the requirements of modern shipping, gave place to the present dock built at Wallsend in 1902. [Illustration: MODEL OF THE BERMUDA DOCK.] The length of the present Bermuda dock is 545 feet over the keel blocks, its width of entrance 100 feet, and it is capable of normally taking vessels drawing 33 feet of water over keel blocks 4 feet high. The walls themselves are 53 feet 3 inches high, and 435 feet in length, and they form girders of enormous strength. Three pontoons, secured to the lower portions of the walls by fish-plate joints, lugs, and taper-pins, form the bottom or deck of the dock. The middle pontoon is a rectangle 96 feet by 300 feet; the end pontoons, each 120 feet long, taper for 49 feet towards their outer extremities to facilitate towing. At this immersion the walls have a freeboard of 3 feet 6 inches, which in urgent cases might be safely reduced by a foot or more in order to increase the depth of water over the blocks. Its lifting power up to pontoon-deck level is 15,500 tons, but by utilising the “pound” formed by the bulwark surrounding the pontoon decks, additional lifting power up to 17,500 tons can be gained. The dock, without its machinery, weighs 6500 tons. When called upon to perform its maximum lift the dock is sunk until the summit of its walls is but 2 feet 6 inches above sea-level. Water is admitted into the three pontoons and the two side walls, and from them removed by eight 16-inch centrifugal pumps at a rate sufficient to lift an ironclad of 15,000 tons in three and a half hours. In order that the dock may not tilt as it rises, the whole is divided into fifty-six divisions, each of which is separately connected with the pumps. By turning off cocks, water can be left in any desired divisions, and the dock forced to incline in any direction for purposes of cleaning and repairs. When undergoing its official tests the Bermuda dock lifted H.M.S. _Sans Pareil_ over 11,000 tons, and after its arrival at Bermuda it received and raised completely out of the water H.M.S. _Dominion_, when that vessel was badly damaged through stranding and was so down in the water as to displace nearly 17,000 tons. It is specially important that a structure of this kind should be self-docking, that is, able to lift any part of itself clear of the water. To expose the bottom of one side the dock is first lowered to a depth of 20 to 21 feet, the water inside the wall compartments being brought to the same level as that of the water outside. The dock is then raised by emptying the pontoons, and when these are exhausted the water is released from the side to be exposed until the outer corner is two feet or more clear. The pontoons are lifted in turn by withdrawing the pins of one, and allowing it to float, while the rest of the dock sinks. The pontoon is then made fast to the walls at its floating level, and the dock emptied, so exposing the whole of the bottom of the raised pontoon. The two end sections can be treated simultaneously, and floated if required on to the central portion, but the latter must be moved only when the other pontoons are in position. Electric lights and hauling machinery are distributed over the dock. A crane capable of lifting five tons runs along each wall from end to end. A somewhat similar dock to that at Bermuda, slightly shorter but of greater lifting power, was designed for the Navy Department of the United States of America, and constructed by the Maryland Steel Company at Baltimore, and stationed at Algiers near New Orleans. Its length is 525 feet over blocks, its entrance 100 feet, and its lifting power up to pontoon-deck level no less than 18,000 tons, making it as regards lifting power then the most powerful dock in the world. This lifting could be increased to 20,000 tons by using the “pound.” Its hull weight is 5850 tons. [Illustration: SELF-DOCKING OF THE BERMUDA DOCK (WELL HEELED).] [Illustration: BERMUDA DOCK: CENTRE PONTOON SELF-DOCKED] It is interesting to note the different methods adopted by the Governments of the two countries for the shoring or berthing of the ships on the dock. The English custom in the case of ironclads of the pre-_Dreadnought_ era, and also that of Italy and Japan, is to support the armour belt on more or less vertical shores inserted under an angle-iron firmly attached to the belt. These shores are put into position as the ship is rising, and, as the water recedes, more and more shores are inserted. The Bermuda dock has large and heavy altars constructed for this purpose. The American custom is to strengthen the bilges of their ironclads with strong bilge docking keels, forming, with the keel proper, a level bottom. No shores are required beyond those necessary to centre the vessel, and no great care is required in adjusting the berth, and one set of bilge blocks does for all sizes of vessels. The American plan affords a great saving in weight and quantity of shores, and, what is more important, a great saving in time, not only in the preparation of the berth and centreing of the ship, but also in the actual lifting. With the American plan it would be perfectly feasible to dock a vessel completely in the time required to centre and adjust her with shores disposed according to English practice. The Penarth Floating Dock was constructed in 1909 at Wallsend to the order of the Penarth Ship Building and Ship Repairing Company, Ltd. The dock is of the off-shore or single-walled type, and is one of the finest of its kind. It has an over-all length of about 380 feet, an extreme width of 75 feet, and is capable of accommodating vessels having a beam of 55 feet, with a draught of water up to 18 feet, and a displacement of 4200 tons. Its pumping machinery consists of four centrifugal pumps and engines, for which steam is supplied by two large Babcock and Wilcox boilers, working at 160 lb. pressure. This plant can lift a vessel of 7000 tons dead weight in three-quarters of an hour. For self-docking, the dock is divided transversely into two equal portions, each with its own pumping plant, so that either section can be docked by the other portion. A powerful steam capstan is fitted at each end of the top wall to assist in warping vessels into position when lifting or otherwise. It has eight mechanical side shores in addition to the usual accessories for facilitating the rapid handling of vessels, such as bilge shores, roller fenders, rubbing timbers, and bollards. A duplex reciprocating pump, with a capacity of about 100 tons per hour, has a connection to the main drain of the dock, and enables practically the whole of the water to be pumped out of the dock. On the delivery side the pump is connected to a service-pipe, which has connections at intervals for 3-inch delivery hose. The pump is capable of throwing three jets of water to a height of 40 feet. To enable this floating dock to enter the wet dock in which it was to work, the entrance to which is several feet less than the width of the dock, a joint was provided running the whole length of the pontoon. On arrival of the dock in Penarth roads this joint was disconnected, and the separate sections towed into the wet dock, and reconnected, and the necessary attachment made to the quay wall. [Illustration: BOLTED SECTIONAL DOCK LIFTING A VESSEL.] The Callao floating dock, the towing of which to its destination from the Tyne was the most hazardous towing feat ever accomplished, merits special attention, both on account of the completeness of its equipment and of the extraordinary interest which was manifested in its journey. It is one of the double-sided self-docking type, known as “bolted sectional,” and is divided into three separate portions. It is capable of lifting vessels having a displacement of 7000 tons, but it is so designed that this lifting capacity may be increased to 9500 tons at some future period by the addition of a fourth section, making the over-all length about 510 feet, the present length being 385 feet. Its extreme width, _i.e._, the clearance between the rubbing fenders, is 70 feet, and the draught over keel blocks is sufficient to take vessels drawing 22 feet. As in previous floating docks built on the Clark and Standfield principle, each section has its own independent pumping machinery and steam-supply. Such usual accessories as keel and bilge blocks, mechanical side shores, rubbing timbers, flying gangways, head capstans, &c., are supplied, and there is also a heavy mooring outfit of anchors and cables. The dock was launched in June 1908, and at that time satisfactorily completed a self-docking trial by lifting one of the end pontoons alongside the Wallsend shipyard. For this purpose the three sections of the dock were disconnected, and the two end sections were turned round end for end, so that their points came opposite to the central section which is square-ended. They were then lowered under the water and drawn in under the central section. On pumping out the end sections they rose, bringing up with them the central section, which was then resting on their pointed ends. The dock left the Tyne on August 20 of that year, in charge of the powerful Dutch tugs _Roodezee_ and _Zwartezee_, each of which has an indicated horse-power of 1500, their bunker capacity being 650 tons and 600 tons respectively. The dock in its journey to Callao was manned by a captain, mate, engineer, and nine sailors. It was fastened to the tugs by extra superior Manila ropes of 18 inches, with 30 fathoms of flexible steel wires of 4¹⁄₂ inches circumference on both ends, while each tug had on board a new spare rope of precisely the same size and quality. One tug broke down on the way, and another had to be sent to Monte Video to take her place. The time taken on the journey was 225 days, but after deducting the delays in the Thames and at Monte Video, the time occupied on the passage was only a little over four months. The long voyage down the Atlantic, culminating in the passage of the dreaded Straits of Magellan, caused the vessel to be kept upon the marine reinsurance list almost from start to finish. The distance from the Tyne to Callao does not represent a world’s record for a tow of this nature, inasmuch as it has been exceeded by the Dewey Dock built by the Maryland Steel Company of Baltimore for the United States Government, which, in the summer of 1906, was towed from America to the Philippines, a distance of 13,089 miles, in 150 days. Great Britain, though a large builder and the principal designer of floating docks, does not possess very many; possibly the number and excellence of the dry docks scattered round her coasts may be the explanation. But as dry docks are costly to make or alter, the British Admiralty has ordered the construction at Wallsend of a floating dock which will take the largest battleship afloat or likely to be built for some years to come. In anticipation of the possible needs of the mercantile marine, plans have been prepared for a floating dock with a lifting power of 45,000 tons. The largest floating dock in existence at present is at Hamburg, which has a better equipment in this respect than any other port in the world. It was built by Messrs. Blohm and Voss, the shipbuilders, for their own use, and was completed last year and can lift 35,000 tons. Hamburg has altogether eighteen iron and steel floating docks. Bremen has three large floating docks, two of which, if used together, have a lifting power of 3300 tons. The third dock, 385 feet long by 83 feet inside measurement, can lift a vessel of 10,500 tons. Other countries also have provided themselves with floating docks; indeed there are few nations of any importance which have not several floating docks, modern in type, of great lifting power, and thoroughly equipped. A few, like Austria, reserve the docks for naval purposes only. [Illustration: THE “BAIKAL.”] [Illustration: THE CARTAGENA DOCK.] The life of the iron or steel floating dock of whatever type is likely to be far longer, if care be taken of the structure, than might at first be supposed. Rennie’s Cartagena dock, built of iron in 1859, was in such splendid condition when the proposal was made to build a Havana dock that as a counter-proposal it was suggested to send the Cartagena dock there. The _Nicolaieff_ built in 1876, has been uninterruptedly employed ever since in lifting the vessels of the Russian Navy. The Victoria Dock is 310 feet in length, and of the hydraulic-lift type, with a lifting power of 3000 tons, and has nine pontoons or trays of a total length of 2185 feet, and an aggregate lifting power of 17,060 tons; the pontoons were constructed between 1857 and 1876, the largest of them being of 5000 tons. The Malta dock, also of the hydraulic type, is 340 feet in length, with a lifting power of 4000 tons, and was built in 1871. It has two pontoons of 4000 and 2500 tons respectively. The hydraulic floating dock at Bombay, built in 1872, was rather larger, being 400 feet in length with a lifting power of 8000 tons, its pontoon of the same length lifting 6500 tons. These lifts were designed by the late Edwin Clark, M.I.C.E., who introduced floating docks from which the present types have directly sprung. These hydraulic docks are no longer at work. The carrying of railway trains by ferry-steamers across stretches of water too large to be bridged over is no new thing, there being several such in the United States and Canada. Many of the vessels thus employed are of considerable size. These waters are comparatively landlocked, and the traffic, except in unusually stormy weather, is seldom interrupted. The American ferry-boats are double-ended, so that a train can enter at one end and leave at the other after crossing the water, the ends of the ferry-boat and of the pier supporting the shore lines being constructed to fit exactly. Most of the modern American ferry-boats taking railway trains have two, three, or four sets of rails on their decks, and accommodate their passengers on a deck above, where the saloons and cabins are situated. Where the railway-level is different on the two sides of the water, the boat or the landing-stage is provided with hoisting machinery which raises the train to the desired level, a truck or two or a passenger coach at a time. The nature of the work these railway ferry-steamers have to perform, and the fact that every one has to be built to suit the special conditions of the ferriage where it is to be employed, make it inevitable that no two of them are alike, except such as may be sister vessels employed on the same station. In Russia the conditions are very difficult. The current of the River Volga is swift, the height of the water-level varies as much as 45 feet, and as the ice is frequently two feet in thickness the work of maintaining the ferry is not to be undertaken lightly. The vessel by which the service is performed was built by Messrs. Armstrong, Mitchell and Co. To enable it to be sent to its destination it was constructed in four parts, so that it would pass through the Marinsky Canal to get to the Volga. The boat is 252 feet long by 55 feet 6 inches broad, and 14 feet 6 inches deep. It has four lines of rails, converging at the bow into two, and altogether can accommodate twenty-four trucks. At the bow is a high framework for a hydraulic hoist which lifts the trucks between the deck and the rails ashore, a distance of 25 feet, the difficulty of negotiating the remaining portion of the difference in the level being overcome by there being two levels of rails on the landing-stage. The propelling machinery, of the surface-condensing type with twin screws, gives the vessel a speed of nine knots an hour. The bronze propellers are unusually strong and heavy to withstand blows from the ice in the river; the actual ice-breaking to keep the passage clear is performed by another steamer. A ferry-steamer of a different type is that which plies across Lake Baikal in Central Asia in connection with the Transasiatic Railway. As the lake is frozen over for nearly half the year and the vessel has to do duty as an icebreaker as well, the hull has been made extraordinarily strong and heavy. The stem and stern are of massive steel castings. The vessel, which is of steel throughout, is 290 feet in length by 57 feet beam, and the draught of water is rather over 18 feet. The hull bears an outer plate an inch thick and 9 feet wide, placed from end to end along the water-line as a further protection against the friction of the ice. The vessel is also subdivided extensively into water-tight compartments in addition to the usual bulkheads. Over the railway deck are large and sumptuous public and private staterooms. Three sets of triple-expansion engines have been installed with boilers working at a pressure of 160 lb.; there are twin propellers at the stern, and a third propeller at the bow. This vessel is also remarkable as being probably the most rapidly constructed vessel of her size in existence. Not six months elapsed from the time the order was received until the steamer was built, unbuilt, and packed on board a steamer ready for departure to Russia, this including also the making of the engines. The packages were conveyed as far as possible along the Siberian Railway and thence by sledges to Lake Baikal, where the ship was re-erected. The only sea-going railway ferry-steamer in existence is the _Drottning Victoria_, launched in January 1909 from the Neptune Works of Messrs. Swan, Hunter, and Wigham Richardson, Ltd., to the order of the Royal Administration of the Swedish State Railways. She was built to ferry trains across the Baltic, between Sassnitz in Germany and Trelleborg in Sweden, a distance of 65 nautical miles. High sea-going qualities were necessary as the voyage is occasionally a very rough one. The vessel is 354 feet in length by over 50 feet beam, and is propelled by twin-screw triple-expansion engines, supplied with steam from four large boilers working under Howden’s system of forced draught. The trains are carried on two tracks on the car deck, occupying nearly the whole surface of the deck. Above and below this deck is very luxurious passenger accommodation. The vessel has been designed to be very steady at sea, and has unusually large bilge keels fitted to minimise the rolling. Spring buffers and other necessary appliances are arranged to prevent the cars from moving when at sea. A bow rudder is fitted as well as the stern rudder, and both are controlled by steam from the captain’s bridge. The steamer has been divided into a very large number of water-tight compartments, which, with the bulkhead doors with which she is fitted, render her practically unsinkable. She is also to be fitted with a submarine signal installation. The ventilating and heating are ensured by an installation of thermo tanks, enabling fresh, warm air to be forced into all the rooms in winter and fresh cool air in summer. Her speed is over 16 knots per hour, and the journey is made within four hours. The performances of this boat are being watched with no small amount of interest, as it has been suggested that if she should prove equal to all requirements a modification of this form of steamer might be successful in the cross-Channel service between Dover and Calais, or other ports on either side of the English Channel. [Illustration: _Photo. Frank & Sons, South Shields._ THE “DROTTNING VICTORIA.”] Ferry-boats of other types exist by the score, from barges upwards, propelled by an extraordinary assortment of contrivances, some of the older and quainter of which have been referred to in an earlier portion of this book. The historic Tyne ferries were withdrawn not long since for financial reasons, but an attempt is being made to restart them. The ferries at Glasgow and over the Mersey have each their own special features, and even the Thames has not always been without penny steamers. The Thames Steamboat Company and other organisations have made the experiment. The later effort of the London County Council to establish a service deserved a better fate, for the boats were well built and the engines were compact and powerful for their size. The necessity of keeping open waterways which Nature wishes to close annually by freezing over, led to the invention of a species of vessel planned with that object. The most famous ice-breaker is the _Ermack_, launched in 1899 by Messrs. Armstrong, Whitworth and Co. for the Russian Government, for which she was designed by Vice-Admiral Makaroff. Many of the harbours of northern Europe are frozen over for the greater part, and sometimes the whole, of the winter, to such an extent that the ice attains a thickness of several feet; and navigation is at a standstill so far as those ports are concerned. The only way of keeping a channel open is to prevent the ice from freezing too thickly to permit of the passage of vessels, and this is done by keeping a vessel moving frequently up and down the channel to break the ice before it can freeze so thickly as to become impassable. An ice-breaking ship, to perform its allotted task, must be both weighty and powerful, and capable of travelling at a speed sufficient to give her the required momentum so that she may break the ice by the sheer force of the blow she delivers when she rams it, and she must be strong enough to inflict and not sustain damage by the collision. Further, besides cracking the ice into fragments weighing a few score tons apiece, she must be able to slide upon the ice and crush it by sheer weight. The _Ermack_ is 305 feet long, 71 feet beam, and 42 feet 6 inches deep. She had three screws aft and, when first built, had a fourth screw forward, the forefoot being considerably cut away to allow it to operate between the stem and keel. The idea was that the forward screw would agitate the water under the ice about to be struck and thus lessen the support the ice received from the water, and that it would also prevent an accumulation of ice under the ship’s bottom by creating a current of water towards the stern where the after propellers would throw the ice astern of the ship. This screw was found to be less useful than was expected, or rather it was discovered in practice that as good results could be obtained without it as with it in dealing with the massive Arctic ice, or any ice over a certain thickness, and when the ship was sent back to her builders a few years later to be lengthened, the forward propeller was taken out and not replaced. When the alterations were made the bow was severed in dry dock, and another bow having been built it was launched and floated into the dock and attached to the vessel. This bow is of a different shape from the other and has proved to be even more effective than the old one. Three screws aft are necessary in an ice-breaker of this size in order to give the power for the proper performance of her duties and also to enable her to be steered in very limited areas, greater steering facilities being obtainable by this means than by any other. The _Ermack_ is fitted with three sets of triple-expansion machinery, having cylinders 25 inches, 39 inches, and 64 inches diameter, with a 42-inch stroke of piston, working at a pressure of 160 lb. The boilers are six in number, 15 feet in diameter by 20 feet long, working under forced draught. The machinery develops about 10,000 horse-power. One of the _Ermack’s_ feats was to rescue the coast defence armour-clad _General Admiral Apraxine_, which had got frozen in after stranding in the Baltic. She finds no insuperable difficulty in smashing her way through ice 12 or 13 feet in thickness. The first piece of ice she ever attacked was drift ice about five feet thick, through which she went easily with her engines giving her little more than half-speed. The most serious test was against ice estimated at 25 feet thick, consisting of 5 feet of field ice, 9 feet of pack ice above it, and ice 11 feet thick, and perhaps more, below the field ice. Thick snow on top of thick field ice forms the most serious obstacle, the snow forming an immense cushion or ridge which becomes worse the more an effort is made to get through it. On another occasion she made her way by ramming through ice 34 feet in thickness. Another experience was to rescue eight of nine steamers which were nipped in the ice; the ninth was so badly squeezed by the ice that she sank before the _Ermack_ could force her way to her. A smaller ice-breaker, the _Sampo_, built by the same firm for Finland, has gone through sheet ice 12 inches thick at a speed of 8¹⁄₂ knots, and frequently through drift ice 10 or 12 feet thick. On the other side of the Atlantic, whenever a severe winter is experienced, many of the Canadian and United States lake and coast ports are only kept open by means of ice-breaking ferry-steamers. Of the latter type is the _Scotia_, built by Armstrong, Whitworth and Co. for the carriage of railway trains across the Straits of Canso to and from Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia. She is 282 feet in length, and on the rails laid on her decks she is capable of taking a load of nine Pullman cars, and can also accommodate an express locomotive and tender weighing as much as 118 tons. She has an ice-breaking propeller and a rudder at each end, and has two sets of triple-expansion engines of 1200 horse-power each. Her speed is rather over twelve knots. About four years ago the ice-breaking and surveying steamer _Lady Grey_ was launched by Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim at Barrow-in-Furness for the Canadian Government, and performed some exceedingly effective work, particularly in the St. Lawrence River or in duties associated with the Marine and Fisheries Board. A larger and faster vessel being required, the builders were asked to provide a steamer which, while preserving all the qualities of an ice-breaker, should yet be able to attain a speed of seventeen knots, and be capable of use for a variety of purposes. The _Earl Grey_ was launched in June 1909, and besides fulfilling these requirements has been engaged in the passenger traffic across the Northumberland Straits. She has been fitted with special quarters, enabling her to be employed as an official yacht by the Governor-General. Provided with a cut-water or schooner stem with a short bowsprit, an elliptical stern, and two steel pole schooner-rigged masts, which rake considerably, and having been designed with a graceful sheer, she has more of the appearance of a large yacht than an ice-breaker intended to be able to make her passages in all sorts of weather and under widely varying conditions. The hull is built with extraordinary strength; the frames are very closely spaced in order to take up the thrust of the pack ice which in winter may sometimes be piled round the vessel; the shell plating is of unusual thickness, and the outer skin is double right fore and aft along the water-line and to the bottom of the keel in the fore body, where the friction of the ice tends in the case of ice-breaking steamers to wear away the material. The ordinary practice of this and all other ice-breakers, in whatever part of the world, is to utilise their weight to break the ice by rising upon it and crushing it. In order to possess as great a weight as possible, large tanks are built into the fore part of the _Earl Grey_ which can be filled or emptied at a rate of 250 tons an hour. The vessel is also equipped for breaking ice when going astern, the counter having been suitably strengthened to resist the shocks; while to secure the rudder from injury it has been built into the form of the ship so that her movements are not impeded by the ice-floes. The _Earl Grey_ is 250 feet in length, 47 feet 6 inches beam, 17 feet 7 inches depth, and 3400 tons displacement. She has accommodation for fifty first-class passengers and twenty in the second class, and under these circumstances winter ice-breaking excursions may yet become the vogue among those in search of a new sensation. [Illustration: THE “ERMACK.”] [Illustration: THE “EARL GREY.”] The introduction of steam-propelled vessels was objected to by sailing-yacht owners, but the advantages of auxiliary power in yachts intended for cruising overcame all opposition, and in the course of a few years the number of yachts of all rigs, even cutters, fitted with auxiliary power, steadily increased. Machine-driven yachts are intended as cruisers. A few steam-yachts had paddle-wheels, the latter being specially favoured for all vessels intended for Government or for Royal use, where sea-going qualities were required. One of the most notable of this type was the _Victoria and Albert_, built to the order of her Majesty the late Queen Victoria, which was, at the time of her launch, one of the finest yachts afloat. Among the earliest of the Royal yachts was the screw steamer _Fairy_, which was built for the late Queen in 1845 at the Thames Iron Works, Shipbuilding and Engineering Company’s yard at Blackwall, then owned by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare. This was the first iron vessel owned by the British Government. Her dimensions were: length 144·8 feet, breadth 21 feet 1¹⁄₂ inches, draught 6 feet, displacement 210 tons, horse-power 416, and speed 13·21 knots. It is only fitting that the finest Royal yachts afloat intended purely for pleasure purposes should be at the disposal of the monarch of the leading maritime nation, and the latest Royal yachts built for the late King Edward merit this description. They are the present _Victoria and Albert_ and the _Alexandra_, the latter built in 1908. Other modern Royal yachts of note are the German Emperor’s _Hohenzollern_, which is heavily armed and can be utilised as a fast cruiser if necessary, and the Russian _Pole Star_ and _Standart_. Amongst the celebrated Royal yachts of the past belonging to foreign rulers are the iron paddle-steamer _Faid Gihaad_, built in 1852 by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare for Said Pasha, the then Khedive of Egypt. She was a flush-decked barquentine, 285 feet in length between perpendiculars, 318 feet over all, with a breadth of beam of 40 feet and a tonnage of 2200. Her engines were of 800 horse-power and were built by Messrs. Maudslay and Field. She was equipped as a war vessel and carried an armament of two 84-pounder pivot guns, twelve 32-pounder broadside guns on the upper deck, and fourteen 32-pounders on the main deck. Like everything else that the Pasha indulged in, the _Faid Gihaad_ illustrated his taste for luxury. Externally the vessel was painted white from the water-line, below which she was copper-coloured. The stern was ornamented with a gold scroll, and each paddle-box had a crescent and star in gold. Three years before the building of the _Faid Gihaad_ there was constructed at Alexandria, by order of Said Pasha, a steam-frigate called the _Sharkie_, which was sent to this country to be fitted with steam-engines and a screw propeller. She was 220 feet in length, was rigged as a second-class frigate, and had engines of 550 horse-power by Miller and Ravenhill. These were capable of driving her nearly 11 knots an hour. Her armament consisted of 36 guns of heavy calibre. The furniture and panelling of the cabins were richly inlaid with ivory and mother-of-pearl, which may have admirably suited the taste of Said Pasha in these matters, but can hardly have conduced to the efficiency of the vessel as a fighting machine. [Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._ THE ROYAL YACHT “VICTORIA AND ALBERT.”] [Illustration: _Photo. G. West & Son._ THE IMPERIAL YACHT “HOHENZOLLERN.”] In the days when the Papal States were a power in the land and his Holiness was not a voluntary prisoner in the Vatican, the then occupant of St. Peter’s chair was the possessor of a very fine armed screw steam-yacht, the _Immacolata Concezione_. She was built by the Thames Iron Works and Shipbuilding Company, with engines by Messrs. J. Seaward and Co. of Millwall. She carried eight brass 18-pounder guns, and was a three-masted full-rigged ship of some 627 tons burden. The engines were of 160 nominal horse-power and 300 indicated, and were capable of giving her a speed of 13 knots an hour. Among other famous iron vessels which were either specially built or employed as Royal yachts in the middle of the last century may be mentioned the _Jerome Napoleon_, constructed by M. A. Normand at Havre for the late Prince Napoleon, afterwards Emperor of the French; the _Peterhoff_, built by Messrs. Ditchburn and Mare at Blackwall in 1850 for the late Emperor Nicholas of Russia, which was wrecked on her outward voyage to the Baltic; the _Falken_, built at Deptford in 1858 by Messrs. C. Langley for the late King Frederick VII. of Denmark. She was an iron schooner-rigged vessel 127 feet in length, and could steam at 10 knots an hour. The _Miramar_ was a favourite yacht with the late Empress of Austria. The Russian Imperial Yacht _Livadia_ was circular and shallow, and is the only large turbot-shaped yacht afloat. These yachts, however, have been gradually superseded by vessels of a thoroughly modern type. As a case in point, the _Princess Alice_, owned by H.S.H. the Prince of Monaco, and constructed by Messrs. R. and H. Green at Blackwall in 1891, is built of steel frames with teak planking, her bottom being covered with copper sheeting. Thus in her general finish she is one of the finest specimens of marine architecture on the composite principle which ever took the water. Unlike most Royal yachts, she is used not merely for pleasure but also for scientific research, for the Prince of Monaco is well known for his contributions to the scientific knowledge of ocean depths and all that pertains thereto. The expeditions which he has organised, and most of which he has conducted in person, are invariably made on this yacht, which is splendidly equipped for the purpose. In order that she may be able to cover a large radius of action, she is fitted with an unusual coal capacity and can store in her bunkers sufficient to carry her 3700 miles. Under steam alone she can make 9 knots an hour, and with steam and sail combined she has been known to attain to nearly 12 knots an hour. The _Safa-el-bahr_, designed and constructed in 1894 by Messrs. A. and J. Inglis of Glasgow for his Highness the Khedive of Egypt, is also a steel-built two-decked yacht. She is schooner-rigged, and is fitted with three-stage expansion engines with cylinders 18 inches, 29 inches, and 48 inches in diameter, giving a piston stroke of 36 inches. These are supplied with steam at a pressure of 160 lb. from two boilers having a heating surface of 2300 square feet, and give an indicated horse-power of 1200, with a speed of 14·1 knots per hour. Her tonnage under yacht measurement is 677 tons. She has a length of 221 feet, breadth 27·1 feet, depth 17·3, with a draught of 12 feet. As private yacht-owning is a pastime in which only the wealthy can indulge, and as almost all private yachts are built to suit the fancy of their owner, a considerable individuality is displayed by them. They range in size from vessels not bigger than a ship’s boat to ocean-going liners. The _Winchester_, the latest boat of her class yet devised, is a triple-screw turbine yacht, bearing a strong resemblance to a torpedo boat. Her dimensions are: length 165 feet, breadth 15³⁄₄ feet, depth 9³⁄₄ feet, and displacement 180 tons. She was built in 1909 for Mr. W. P. Rouss, a prominent member of the New York Yacht Club, by Messrs. Yarrow and Co. of Scotstoun. The propelling machinery consists of three Parsons marine steam turbines constructed by Messrs. Yarrow. She has two Yarrow water-tube boilers, and her furnaces are fitted to burn oil fuel. The hull is of steel. At her trials at Skelmorlie she easily maintained a speed of 26³⁄₄ knots, which was ³⁄₄ of a knot in excess of the speed stipulated in her building contract; and it was believed that a much higher rate could have been achieved, as 250 lb., the full working pressure of her boilers, was not reached, the high pressure of her high-power turbine being only 160 lb. The _Iolanda_, of about 2000 tons yacht measurement, was built for an American owner in 1908, and was then stated to be the second largest privately owned yacht in the world. She was both constructed and engined by Messrs. Ramage and Ferguson, Ltd., Leith. Her length over all is about 305 feet; beam 37 feet 6 inches; depth 23 feet. Her twin-screw machinery is of the triple-expansion four-crank type of 3000 to 4000 indicated horse-power. Her boilers are partly cylindrical marine return tubular and partly water-tube. This combination, the first installed in any yacht, affords the advantage of being able to raise steam and get under way at practically a moment’s notice, or provides additional speed at short notice when required, while the bunker capacity of some 550 tons gives the yacht a very extensive ocean-steaming radius. She is provided with motor and steam launches, quick-firing guns, electric-lighting apparatus, which is accredited as being the largest ever installed in a private yacht, and includes arrangements for manipulating the Marconi wireless telegraphy. Among eccentricities of design in steamboats may be mentioned cigar ships, vessels shaped like birds, early submarines, double-hulled boats, and numerous other extravagances. One of the earliest submarines was contrived by a Dutchman named Hollar, about 1653, but whether this wonderful vessel ever got beyond the imaginative or paper stage is unknown. There is a picture of it in the British Museum. This singular craft was to be 72 feet in length, 12 feet high, and 8 feet beam, with a wheel in the centre where it “hath its motion.” The description says it was built at Rotterdam. The inventor undertook in one day to destroy 100 ships. “It can go from London to Rotterdam and back in one day, and in six days can go to the East Indies, and can also run as fast as bird can fly.” “No fire, no storm, no bullets can harm her unless it please God.” There is no further trace of her. The first submarine which achieved any measure of success was that of David Bushnell, an American, who devised it in the hope of blowing up a British warship and failed egregiously. Bushnell, who was born at Saybrook, Conn., in 1742, devoted a large amount of attention to submarine warfare. His idea was to fix a small powder magazine to the bottom of a vessel and explode it by means of a clockwork apparatus. He constructed a tortoise-shaped diving boat, made of iron, and containing sufficient air to support a man for half an hour. This boat, called the _American Turtle_, was propelled by a sort of screw or oar worked from inside. It could be immersed by admitting water through a valve in the bottom, and lightened by pumping the water out again. She was tried, without success, against the British warship _Eagle_ in New York harbour, and a later attack on the _Cerberus_ left that frigate unharmed, but blew up an American schooner and some of her crew. The _Gemini_ twin steamer, invented by Mr. Peter Borrie, was a double-hulled boat, launched in the summer of 1850. The keels and stems were not placed in the centre of the hulls but towards the inside of them, thus making the water-lines very fine on the inside. This was intended to diminish the tendency of the water to rise between the hulls. The inner bilges were much fuller than the outer ones, the idea being to afford a greater degree of buoyancy on the inside, in order to support the weight of the deck. The steamer was 157¹⁄₂ feet long over all, and 26¹⁄₂ feet broad on deck. Each hull was 8¹⁄₂ feet broad, with a space 9¹⁄₂ feet between them. The frames were of angle iron, and the keels were formed by carrying the plates downwards, so as to form channels for the bilge-water inside the hulls. This arrangement was intended for river craft of this type, but for sea-going vessels drawing more water the inventor planned keels of iron bars, with the garboard-strakes riveted upon them in the customary way. The plating was not carried to the top of the frames on the inner side of the hulls, except at the space in the middle for the paddle-wheel, but was carried up to the deck, thus forming an arch between the two hulls, which were bound together with stays. The hulls were divided into water-tight compartments. The vessel was two-ended and could travel in either direction without turning. There was a rudder at each end, placed in the centre of the opening between the two hulls. It was constructed somewhat in the manner of the balanced rudder of later years, as it was affixed, to a vertical shaft in such a way that it was divided into two unequal parts, and when left free would accommodate itself to the vessel’s motion. The steamer was estimated to carry from 800 to 1000 passengers. Whether in the sailing days or since, the crossing of the Channel between Dover and Calais has been attended with an amount of misery altogether disproportionate to the shortness of the voyage. It is therefore not surprising that inventors have at one time and another attempted to design vessels which should give the maximum of speed and comfort and the minimum of sea-sickness. The English Channel Steamship Company, Limited, was formed in 1872 to adopt the plan of a steam-ship designed by Captain Dicey, and construct the steam-ship _Castalia_. His idea was that two large hulls should be used, and placed at such a distance apart that each should act as an outrigger to the other, and the whole structure should remain comparatively steady. The _Castalia_ was built by the Thames Iron Works Company. She was 400 feet long, and each hull had a beam of 20 feet, with a depth of hold of 20 feet. The distance between the two hulls was 35 feet, and they were united by strong girders. The hulls were very sharp at the ends, and flat in the floors, and the draught of water was only 6 feet. The inner sides of the hulls had a freeboard of 14 feet, and the uniting girders were slightly arched, but a difference in the methods of fixing them to the hull was made, compared with previous experience with double-hulled vessels. In former attempts to solve the problem of the navigation of twin steamers, the connecting beams had usually been placed in such a way that their ends extended under the decks of the hulls. This in the case of wood was manifestly a plan which did not permit of a very large vessel or of a certain limit of strength being exceeded. Captain Dicey’s scheme in adopting the arched form of girder was to utilise to the utmost the strength of the iron, and bind with the utmost rigidity the whole structure together. Where the girders entered the hulls the upper part was just under the deck; the girders were carried right across to the outer sides of each hull, additional strength being provided by bolting every girder to a bulkhead. The space between the hulls was decked over, and allowed ample accommodation for passengers. Each hull carried a powerful engine for driving a large paddle-wheel, the wheels being placed with a space between them amidships between the two vessels. The vessel could be steered at either end, thus obviating the necessity of turning, and a navigating bridge extended across the tops of the two paddle-boxes. It was even claimed that the ship would be large enough to carry railway trains across the Channel, but this does not seem to have been tried. As she drew only a trifle over 6 feet of water she could enter the harbours on either side of the Channel at any state of the tide, and though she was steady enough as a sea boat she was too slow, and was withdrawn from service. A double-hulled boat of a somewhat different type, and from which great things were expected, was the _Calais-Douvres_. Her principal features were to be an increase in speed and stability, and by means of the steadiness of her double hull, the abolition of sea-sickness. She was an enlarged _Castalia_. The expectation of her owners on these points was not realised and after a few trips she was withdrawn from service and replaced by another and more efficient vessel of the ordinary type. To the category of magnificent failures there should be added the steam-ship _Bessemer_, launched at Hull in 1874 and designed by and named after Mr. (afterwards Sir) Henry Bessemer. The object her designer had in view was to mitigate the horrors of the cross-Channel passage, and to accomplish this he fitted his boat with a spacious saloon which, by means of a series of pivots and a gyroscope, would remain in a level position without oscillation, no matter how much the vessel might roll or how rough the weather might be. These arrangements worked perfectly in theory, but immediately the _Bessemer_ went to sea for her trials and the test became a practical one, it was discovered that she must be relegated to a conspicuous place among the successes that might have been. Everything about her was on a lavish scale. A peculiarity was that she had four paddle-wheels, two a side, an experiment that has never been successful. Her form also was against her, and in dirty weather she would have been a wet ship, difficult to steer, and almost helpless. On her private trial trip the _Bessemer_ attained a speed of eleven knots in crossing from Dover to Calais, but was thirty-five minutes in getting alongside the French pier. One of the most extraordinary vessels ever designed was that known as the _Connector_. She was not rigid, but was built of sections which could be joined together, so that she would bend in accord with the motion of the waves. The joints were constructed by giving to the after end of all sections (but the last) a concave form so that it would overlap the convex bow of the adjoining section. These were joined and hinged by massive iron bolts resting in stout wrought-iron sponsons built into the ship’s sides and framework. If necessary one of the sections could be disconnected and the other three joined up. As each section was fitted with a fore and aft rig, like a cutter, it could make its way under sail alone if necessary. The engine was contained in the hindmost section, which really pushed the other three along. She was intended to be used as an iron screw collier in the London and North-East coast coal trade. Each section was to act as a lighter, and could be left where desired, while the others were sent to their respective destinations, to be picked up again in turn when it was desired to reunite the vessel, and send her for another cargo. The advantage claimed for this peculiar system was that vessels of very light draught, and of length far greater than hitherto and carrying the largest cargoes, might be used without the danger of breaking their backs, or even straining, the yielding of the joints neutralising that liability; also that their great length, light draught, and narrow midship section, permitted unprecedented speed, while the facility for detaching part of the vessel in case of collision, fire, sudden leakage, or grounding with a falling tide, would afford a means of saving life and a portion of hull and cargo, when otherwise all would be lost. A company called the Jointed Ship Company was formed to exploit this novelty in ship construction. Like other experimental schemes it was not a success, the theory of the designers and the practice of Father Neptune not being in accord. The _Winans_ cigar ship, as her name indicates, was shaped like a huge cigar. Messrs. Winans began experimenting in the ’fifties at Baltimore with a view to ascertaining the amount of water-friction sustained by surfaces of differing smoothness at various speeds, the relative resistance of proportions and speeds, and whether any advantages were to be gained from spindle-shaped vessels as compared with ordinary vessels. These experiments resulted in the launching in October 1858 at Ferry Bay, Baltimore, of a spindle- or cigar-shaped vessel having about its middle a ring bearing flanges set at an angle calculated to strike the water and propel the vessel. She had four powerful engines placed amidships, and rudders at both ends measuring 4 feet by 3 feet. She was 16 feet in diameter at the widest part and 180 feet long, and it was expected she would cross the Atlantic in four days; she belied those expectations. The owners stated that she was designed “to obtain greater safety, despatch, uniformity, certainty of action, as well as economy of exportation by sea.” They believed that “by discarding sails entirely, and all the necessary appendages, and building the vessel of iron, having reference to the use of steam alone, these most desirable ends may be even still more fully attained than by vessels using both sails and steam.” They continue: “The vessel we are now constructing has no keel, no cutwater, no blunt bow standing up above the water-line to receive blows from the heaving sea, no flat deck to hold or bulwark to retain the water; neither masts, spars, nor rigging.” The plan and position of the propelling wheel were supposed to be such that its minimum hold of the water would be much greater in proportion to tonnage than the maximum hold of the propelling wheel or wheels in ordinary steamers. The engines were high pressure with a cut-off variable from one-sixth to full stroke; combined, they were to exert threefold more power in proportion to displacement of water than those of the most powerful steam-packets then built. Her boilers were of the locomotive type, consuming 30 tons of coal in twenty-four hours, the smoke, &c., being carried away by two funnels. She was divided into several water-tight compartments. With 200 tons of coal on board she was to displace about 350 tons of water, and accommodate about twenty first-class passengers and the United States mail, with room to spare for small valuable packages, specie, &c. The same principles and properties which were to adapt the vessel to high average speed were claimed to be also adapted to the cheap, safe and sure transportation of freight as compared with vessels using sails only or sails and steam combined. There was a railed-in space on her upper surface for the deck. Messrs. Winans’ first cigar ship, though not fulfilling all the hopes formed of her, was, on the whole, sufficiently successful to encourage the continuance of the experiments, for in the two following years she was severely tested both for speed and seaworthiness in all sorts of weather. Another vessel was built at St. Petersburg in 1861 with a submerged screw propeller at the stern, which gave so much more satisfactory results than the revolving belt apparatus that Messrs. Winans were encouraged to order a third spindle ship. This was built by Mr. John Hepworth of the Isle of Dogs, and was named after her inventor, Mr. Ross Winans. This boat was 256 feet in length with a diameter and depth of 16 feet, and was circular in form throughout. The top of the vessel was strengthened for 130 feet amidships by four longitudinal ribs of steel which supported the deck, and also rendered the top as strong to resist tension and other strains as the bottom. Internally there were iron ribs running round the vessel 4 inches deep and 3 feet apart in the engine and boiler room, and 7 inches deep and spaced 6 feet elsewhere. The bottom and side plates were of iron, were thicker amidships than at the end, while the bottom was further strengthened and protected outside the skin plates by a plate of iron 1 inch thick and 33 inches across at its widest and diminishing to a point at the ends. The skin plates of the top were of toughened steel ³⁄₈ inch thick amidships. The two screw propellers, one at either end, were 22 feet in diameter and were only half immersed in the water, though it is difficult to imagine what advantages were supposed to be gained by incomplete immersion, seeing that the exposed part represented so much dead weight to be carried, to say nothing of the other drawbacks. A space 48 feet 6 inches long amidships was devoted to the engines and boilers. Each of the four boilers had a fire-box, and was surmounted by two vertical cylinders containing vertical tubes; while the centre portions of the boilers were tubeless to allow of more ready cleaning and a better circulation. A fan increased the draught and also the ventilation of the ship. The engines were surface-condensing. The problem of allowing the longest possible stroke was ingeniously solved. Above each of the three jacketed steam cylinders was a shaft, carrying two cranks and working by the sides of the cylinder, the piston-rods passing the shaft and connecting with a cross-head above, which was connected with the cranks by two rods. The three engines were joined by a system of return cranks and a peculiar coupling, which prevented cross-strains from the transmission of power from engine to engine, and from the shafts of the different engines getting out of line. The ship could carry coal for twelve days at normal consumption. On deck it carried two masts and two funnels, all having a considerable rake aft. In 1860, Captain George Peacock, F.R.G.S., formerly a London merchant, and then residing near Exeter, invented a yacht in the shape of a swan. Her title, the _Swan of the Exe_, was displayed on a banneret, the brass rod of which was held in the swan’s beak. This mechanical bird was 17 feet 6 inches in length, with a maximum beam of 7 feet 6 inches, and its height from the keel to the top of the back was 7 feet 3 inches. Its neck and head, which were gracefully curved, rose 16 feet above the water. Its long neck had to do duty as a mast for supporting by means of halliards the two wings, each of which consisted of a double lateen sail. The halliards passed through gilt pendant blocks, attached to a ring, fastened round the neck just below the head. The vessel itself consisted of twin boats beneath the water-line, there being an oblong compartment in the centre, though viewed from the front or side it appeared to consist of one hull only. She had two powerful webbed and feathering feet, constructed of steel, to propel her. These were placed between the keels or hulls, and worked by a lever attached to a contrivance such as is seen on old-fashioned hand fire-engines, operated by two or four persons as required. With two oars which she could also carry, her fishtail-shaped rudder, her feet, and her wings, she could get up a speed before the wind of five miles an hour. She was only intended for ornamental waters or inland lakes. Her interior fittings suggested those of a first-class railway carriage, with plate-glass windows at the sides, &c. Her centre table was big enough for ten persons to dine comfortably at, and at night it could accommodate a mattress upon which to sleep. A description of her at the time adds: “In the table are small apertures which open to the water underneath, and thus afford the opportunity of fishing while sitting at table. Any aquatic prey thus obtained may be dressed in a multum-in-parvo cooking apparatus on board, the smoke from which is conveyed through the bird’s neck, and out at its nostrils. In the breast of the bird is a ladies’ cabin fitted up as a boudoir.” The _Swan_ was of about 5 tons register, and when fully stored and carrying 15 persons, only drew 17 inches of water. About the only thing of which the inventor had not thought was to make one eye green and the other red, to represent ship’s lights. The only ship of her kind ever built with a hot-air engine was the _Ericsson_, named after her inventor and generally called the _Caloric_, because of her peculiar engines. These had four immense cylinders which drove paddle-wheels 32 feet in diameter, the energy being transmitted by a contrivance Ericsson invented and termed the “regenerator.” The shape of the furnaces and the small amount of fuel they required, together with the absence of boilers, enabled a greater amount of space to be devoted to the accommodation of merchandise and passengers. The vessel was 250 feet long, 40 feet broad, 31 feet deep, and had a gross tonnage of 1920. She was built in 1852, of wood, and was asserted to have made a speed of 12 knots an hour on her trial trip, but she never came anywhere near this subsequently. The absence of funnels and the presence of two large paddle-boxes made her one of the most extraordinary vessels ever seen. She made one slow journey across the Atlantic to Liverpool and back to America, and after another set of caloric engines had been tried in her with about as much success, in regard to her speed, as the first, she was fitted with engines of the ordinary type. Three other inventions which have not yet passed the experimental stage are the Hydrocurve, the Hydroplan, and the Hydroplane. The hydroplan is a motor-boat carrying two enormous propellers, one above the stem and the other above the stern, which revolve in the air and not in the water. The vessel is said to have been invented by a gentleman named Fortanini, and with a 70-horse-power motor is claimed to have attained, on Lake Maggiore, two or three years ago, a speed of 40 miles an hour. For all practical purposes the hydroplan may be described as a “skimming dish” hull gliding on the surface of the water, its draught being a few inches only. For some time past some attention has been directed to the trials, on the Illinois River, of a curious type of aquatic motor, named the hydrocurve. Instead of ploughing through the water, the hull of the hydrocurve displaces the water, not sideways as with an ordinary type of vessel, but downwards from the surface, each particle of water being moved in one direction only. According to a report published in the _Popular Mechanic_ of Chicago, this curious vessel on her first trial made a speed of 35 miles an hour. In a further test she achieved 1¹⁄₈ mile in 1 minute 30 seconds, or, roughly speaking, 45 miles an hour. She is 40 feet in length and carries an 80-horse-power motor. The bottom of the boat is concave, lengthways and across. The theory that with an increase in speed the tendency of a ship is to rise, so that when travelling at a fast rate she will draw less water than when going slowly, and consequently will have less resistance and less skin friction, has attracted the attention of naval architects for many years. So far as theory is concerned, there is nothing to prevent a vessel being built on this principle, but when it comes to considering stability, it is another question altogether. The principle is based upon the well-known theory that if the hull of a vessel be made flat in the bottom and inclined slightly, so that it forms an inclined plane, the vessel will rise to an extent governed by the speed at which it travels. The Rev. C. M. Ramus, of Rye, Sussex, in 1872 improved on this theory by making a flat bottom in two inclined planes, one behind the other, so that each should have an equal lifting power. The Admiralty tested several models made by him, but without satisfactory results, probably due to the comparative inefficiency of the screw-propelling machinery of the period. An American engineer, named Fauber, taking advantage of improved propelling machinery, designed a vessel on these lines with hydroplanes attached directly to the bottom, and a year or two ago it carried six persons at a speed of 35 miles per hour. If a vessel of this size can be constructed and retain its stability, there is no reason why one of much greater size should not be built. The development of the principle is that the planes should be placed at some distance below the bottom of the hull, so that when the vessel travels at a considerable speed, it shall rise out of the water and be supported by the planes, which shall skim along the surface. This, however, can only be achieved at present by sacrificing stability to speed. An improvement in construction is to shape the bottom of the hull like a very wide letter =[V]=, with a series of planes underneath. It is claimed that an ocean liner can be built on this system, carrying six propellers arranged in three pairs, and that the necessary air would be pumped under the vessel by the action of the propellers as she travelled along. A steamer on wheels, but intended to travel on the water, was invented a few years since by a Frenchman named Bazin. He constructed a model, which worked well and was on the scale of one-twenty-fifth of the liner he hoped to see built some day. The model consisted of four pairs of hollow wheels or discs, each wheel being in appearance like two immense soup-plates set face to face and set on edge. These wheels were caused to revolve, thereby reducing the friction of the water to a minimum, and the vessel was propelled by a screw. The decks, being built on a framework over the axles, had space for ample accommodation, and in order that the speed of the ship should not suffer it was intended to carry no cargo. A vessel on this plan was constructed and launched on the Seine. The platform was 126 feet long by about 40 feet wide, and each wheel was about 32 feet in diameter and about 10 feet at its greatest width. The total weight of the boat was about 280 tons. The boat proved her utility when tried. The inventor estimated that an ocean-going liner constructed on this system would easily cross the Atlantic at a rate of thirty knots an hour. It is impossible to say what the development of the steam-ship will be in the future. The piston engine has probably reached its utmost development, or very nearly so, and much more in that direction is not to be expected. Naval architects are already considering whether the existing lines of the steam-ship are the best for speed, and a design has been brought out for a steamer constructed on what are known as tetrahedral lines. There has recently been described in the _Scientific American_ a vessel, a model of which has been constructed, designed upon this tetrahedral principle. It is contended that this form for ships offers less resistance than any, and that by it alone can the greatest attainable speed at sea be reached. Yarrow boilers with Schultz turbines are recommended for vessels of this type. A proposal for fast Atlantic travelling, which has not gone beyond the paper stage, is that three long narrow hulls should be built parallel to each other and supporting the main body of the hull. The inventor claims that the method would enable a greater speed to be attained than by any existing liner, and at a less cost; but readers who have followed the development of the steam-ship will recollect that this suggestion provides a curious parallel to the experiments of Patrick Miller with his triple-hulled boats in the eighteenth century. Few, however, will doubt that, great as have been the changes in shipbuilding and steam-propulsion during the last hundred years, there will be changes as great in the present century. [Illustration: C. WATSON’S DOCK AT ROTHERHITHE, LIFTING H.M. BRIG “MERCURY.” _From Watson’s Specification.--A.D. 1785._ THE BERMUDA FLOATING DOCK, LIFTING A 15,000-TON IRONCLAD OF THE “MAJESTIC” CLASS. _From the Contract Drawings.--A.D. 1900._ THE VULCAN CO.’S FLOATING DOCK FOR HAMBURG, LIFTING A 36,000-TON SHIP OF THE “MAURETANIA” CLASS. _From the Contract Drawings._ THE EVOLUTION OF FLOATING DOCKS, 1800-1910.] BIBLIOGRAPHY ADAMSON, A. Sea-borne Traffic. (Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers.) AISBITT, M. W. Shipbuilding Ancient and Modern. AMERICAN “Fall River” and “Hudson River Day” Lines, publications of. AMERICAN “Merchants’ Magazine.” AMERICAN Report of the Merchant Marine Commission. APPLETON’S Cyclopædia of American Biography. 1887-9. BATES, CAPTAIN W. The American Marine. BOURNE, JOHN, C.E. Treatise on the Screw Propeller, Screw Vessels, and Screw Engines. BRASSEY’S Naval Annual. BUCKWELL, G. W. The History of the Newhaven and Dieppe Service. (Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers, 1891.) “CASSIER’S MAGAZINE.” “CENTURY MAGAZINE.” CHANNING, E., and LANSING, M. F. The Story of the Great Lakes. “CHAMBER’S JOURNAL.” CLARK, LYONEL E., M.I.N.A. Floating Docks. COLDEN, CADWALLADER C. Life of Fulton. CUNARD LINE, HISTORY OF. 1886. “DAILY NEWS.” DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY. DICTIONNAIRE UNIVERSEL. DREWRY, T. Propellers. ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA. “ENGINEERING.” “ENGINEER,” THE. FURMAN, FRANKLIN DE R., M.E., and HUMPHREYS, A. C., M.E., Sc.D., LL.D. A History of the Stevens Institute of Technology. 1905. GOODEVE, T. M., M.A. The Elements of Mechanism. ---- Text-book on the Steam-engine. HALDANE, J. W. C. Atlantic Liners and their Engines. ---- Steam-ships and their Machinery. 1893. HALL, HENRY. American Navigation. ---- Shipbuilding Industry of the United States. HOLMES, SIR GEORGE, C.V., K.C.V.O., C.B. Ancient and Modern Ships. 1906. HULLS, J. H. Lecture on the Introduction of Steam Navigation. (Delivered before the Institute of Marine Engineers, February 6, 1906.) “ILLUSTRATED LONDON NEWS.” “ILLUSTRATED TIMES.” INMAN LINE OFFICIAL GUIDE. “INTERNATIONAL MARINE ENGINEERING.” JOHNSON, R. W. The Making of the River Tyne. JOURNAL of the American Society of Naval Engineers. KENNEDY, JOHN. History of Steam Navigation. 1903. KNIGHT’S Encyclopædia. LATROBE, J. B. A Lost Chapter in the History of the Steamboat. LINDSAY, W. S. A History of Merchant Shipping. ---- Our Merchant Shipping. LINK OF EMPIRE, A: or Seventy Years of British Shipping. (Souvenir of the Seventieth Year of Incorporation of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company.) 1909. “LIVERPOOL JOURNAL OF COMMERCE.” “LIVERPOOL COURIER.” MACFARLANE. History of Propellers. MAGINNIS, A.J., M.Inst.C.E. The Atlantic Ferry: Its Ships, Men, and Working. 1900. MARVIN, W. L. The American Merchant Marine. “MASTER, MATE, AND PILOT.” (New York.) MECHANIC’S REGISTER. MORRISON. American Steam Navigation. MORSE, J. T., jun. Benjamin Franklin. MURRAY, ROBERT, C.E. Rudimentary Treatise on Marine Engines and Steam Vessels; together with Practical Remarks on the Screw and Propelling Power as used in the Royal and Merchant Navy. 1852. “NAUTICAL GAZETTE.” “NAUTICAL MAGAZINE.” NIMMO, J., jun. American Treasury Department’s Report, 1870. ORIENT LINE GUIDE. PALMER’S Shipbuilding and Iron Company. Some Account of the Works of. 4th edition, 1909. PARSONS, HON. C. A. The Development of the Marine Steam Turbine. (Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers. Sept. 29, 1906.) P. & O. COMPANY’S HANDBOOK. “PENNY MAGAZINE.” PHILLIPS, SIR R. A Million of Facts. RENWICK, JAMES. Robert Fulton. 1845. SEATON, A. E. A Manual of Marine Engineering. 1890. “SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.” SEMMES, CAPTAIN RAPHAEL. Voyages of the _Sumter_ and _Alabama_. SENNET, R., and ORAM, H. J. The Marine Steam-engine. 1898. SHAW, SAVILL AND ALBION CO.’S GUIDE. “SHIPBUILDER,” THE. “SHIPPING.” “SHIPPING ILLUSTRATED.” “SHIPPING WORLD,” THE. SINCLAIR, A. Two Years on the _Alabama_. SMITH, J. RUSSELL. The Ocean Carrier. SPARKS’ Library of American Biography. “STANDARD,” THE. “STEAM-SHIP,” THE. STEVENS, FRANCIS B. The First Steam Screw Propeller Boats to navigate the Waters of any Country. (Reprint from the Stevens Indicator, Vol. X., April 1893.) STRETTON, CLEMENT E., C.E. The History of the Holyhead Railway Boat Service. (A Paper read on the occasion of the Jubilee of the Railway Companies’ Working, August 1, 1898.) 2nd edition (enlarged), 1901. “TIMES,” THE. TRANSACTIONS of the Institute of Marine Engineers. WALLIKER, J. F. Twenty Years of Progress in Cargo-boat Machinery. (Paper read before the Institute of Marine Engineers, Feb. 12, 1900.) WATSON, COLIN. Doubly in Crown Service. WELLS, D. A. Our Merchant Marine. WILLIAMS, HARRY, R.N. The Steam Navy of England, 1893. WILLIAMSON, CAPTAIN JAMES. The Clyde Passenger Steamer: Its Rise and Progress during the Nineteenth Century. 1904. INDEX (N.B.--All vessels are indexed under Ships named.) Aberdeen Line, Rennie’s, 183; Thompson’s, 296 Aberdeen schooners, 85 Accidents, steam-ship, inquiry into, 77 Adelaide Steamship Co., 347 Admiralty, the, steam packet, 102; vessels, 176; and floating docks, 356, 362; and private shipbuilding yards, 319; and twin screws, 325; and wooden three-deckers, 316 Æolipile of Hero of Alexandria, 9 Africa, West, mail service, 261 African Steamship Co., 261, 299 Ailsa Shipbuilding Co., 99 _Alabama_ claims, the, 176 Albany Line, 48 Albion Co., 298 Alexandria-England, carriage of mails, 178 Alexandria-Suez, travel between, 167 Algiers, U.S.A., floating dock, 358 Allaire Works, 173 Allan Line, 254-255, 281 Allen, Dr. John, and jet-propeller, 12 Allison, Messrs. M. A., New Jersey, 50 Altona floating dock, 355 Alvarez, Don José, Chilian Agent, 128 America, steam vessels in, in 1817, 45 America, South, West Coast of, 263 American Civil War, vessels in the, 90, 98, 175, 329; blockade-runners, 327 American ice-breaking steamers, 369-371 American Line, 256, 291 American mail service, 150, 188 American Navy, the, 329, 339 American pioneers in steam navigation, 19 American river steamers, design of, 46 American Shipbuilding Co., 54 American steam-ships and foreign trade, beginnings of, 153 American subsidy to steam-ship service, 155 American train ferry-boats, 363 Amherst, Lord, 164 Anderson, Anderson & Co., 294 Anglo-French Co.’s fleet, 118 Animal-driven paddles, 2 Apcar, Messrs., Calcutta, 264 Appleton’s “Cyclopædia of American Biography,” 19, 23 Armour plates, 331 _et seq._ Armstrong, Mitchell & Co., 212, 364 Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., 336, 367, 369 Armstrong, Sir William, and cupola vessels, 330 Aspinwall, C. H., 188 Atlantic cable-laying by _Great Eastern_, 277 “Atlantic Greyhound” title won by _Alaska_, 250 Atlantic Liners. _See_ Allan, American, Beaver, Collins, Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, Cunard, Dominion, Donaldson, Galway, Guion, Hamburg-Amerika, Inman, National, Norddeutscher Lloyd, Red Star, State, and White Star Lines Atlantic records, 241, 250, 282, 288 Atlantic routes adopted, 241 Atlantic service. _See_ Transatlantic Australia, Cape route to, 291; discovery of gold, 232; first steam voyage to, 94; prize for fastest voyage to, 263 Australian mail service, 185, 295 Australian Royal Mail Steam Navigation Co., 263 Australian service of P. & O. Co., 180 Australian steamers, the coaling of, 256 Australian trade cargo carriers, 294, 297 Austria, Empress of, yacht of, 373 Austrian-Lloyd Steam Navigation Co., 267 Babcock and Wilcox boilers, 359 Baikal, Lake, ferry, 365 Baltic, Swedish railway ferry, 365 Banana trade, West Indies, 299 Barclay, Curle & Co., Ltd., 206, 294 Barnes, Joseph, 20 Barrow-Belfast service, 121 Barrow-Isle of Man service, 96, 121 Barrow Steam Navigation Co., 121 Batteries, floating, 312, 320 Bazin, M., invents steamer on wheels, 387 Beard, Mr., Scotch ironmaster, 115 Beaver Line, 253, 299 Bell, Henry, of Helensburgh, 61; relations with Fulton, 61; designs a steamboat, 62 Bell indicator for steward, 143 Belt conveyors, 349 Berlin, service to, 117 Bermuda floating dock, 355-357 Bernoulli, Daniel, 207 Bessemer, Sir Henry, and gyroscope boat, 379 Bilge keel, 281 Binney, Capt, L. & N.W.R. Marine Superintendent, 120 Bird-foot propellers, 7, 27, 207 Birmingham, Eagle Foundry, 4 Bishop’s disc engine, 313 Black and Saxton Campbell, Quebec, 134 Blackett, Capt., R.N., 214 Blockade-runners, 90, 98, 174, 175, 327 Blohm and Voss floating dock, 362 Blue Anchor Line, 297 Boats driven by animals, 2 Boats for safety, 78 Boilers, 229-230, 306; without water, 39; pressure, 210; tubular, 209; in warships, 337 Bombay floating dock, 363 Bombay, steamer launched at, 202 Borrie, Peter, 376 Boston-Liverpool trade, 288 Boulton and Watt engines, 30, 66, 81, 134, 311 Bourne, Messrs., 176 Bourne, William, proposition (1578), 6 Bows of steamers, shape of, 71 Branca, Giovanni, and steam (1629), 9 Brazil trade, 183 Bremen-New York service, 305 Bremen floating docks, 362 Brent, Mr., Deptford, 131 Bridgewater, Duke of, 61 Brighton, 106 Bristol-Waterford trade, 75 British and African Steam Navigation Co., Ltd., 299 British and American Steam Navigation Co., 138, 148 British and Foreign Steam Navigation Co., 110, 111, 177 British and Irish Steam Packet Co., 97 British and North American Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. _See_ Cunard Line British India Steam Navigation Co., 181, 185 British Queen Steam Navigation Co., 138 British steam-ships, beginnings of, 56 Brown, John, & Co., Clydebank, 337 Brown-Curtis turbine, 337 Brown, Mr. W. H., New York, 158 Brownne, Charles, builder of the _Clermont_, 36 Brunel, Isambard K., 78, 208, 236, 263; designs the _Great Britain_, 221; and the _Great Eastern_, 269-278 Brunel, Sir Mark, 224 “Bulk freighter,” 82 Bulkheads, 230, 235 Bunker, Captain Elihu S., rivals Fulton, 36, 39 Burmese War, 165 Burns, Mr. John, and Mr. S. Cunard, 150 Bury, Curtice, and Kennedy, Liverpool, 231 Bushnell, David, designs submarines, 206, 276; and applies screw propeller, 206 Caird, Messrs., of Greenock, 119, 241, 293, 294, 305 Calcutta and Burmah Steam Navigation Co., 181 Calcutta, steamers to, via the Cape, 184; and Suez service, 178; to Spithead, length of passage in 1840, 167 Calcutta Steam Committee, 166 California gold rush, 188 Californian trade, 188 Callao floating dock, 360 Calliope, the, musical instrument, 50 Caloric engines, 384 Cameron, T., & Co., Messrs., 100 Cammell, Laird & Co., 338 Campbell, Johnston & Co., floating dock at Bermuda, 356 Canada, mail steam-ship line to, 254; lines to, 255 Canadian-built lake steamers, 55 Canadian claims for first steam crossing of Atlantic, 135 Canadian ice-breaking steamers, 369-371 Canadian Pacific Railway, 299 Canadian trade, 289 Canso, Straits of, railway ferry, 369 Cantilever-framed steamers, 346 Cape route to India, 167 Cape to Spithead, length of passage (1840), 169 Cape of Good Hope mail subsidy, 183 Cape Town-Durban mails, 183 Cargo-boats, 342-352 Carron Shipping Co., the, 85-87 Carron Works, 56 Cartagena floating dock, 363 Cattle steamers, 345 Caus, Salomon de, 10 Ceylon-Hong-Kong mails, 179 “Chambers’ Journal,” account of the _Great Eastern_, 271-275 Channel Islands service, 109-112 Chester and Holyhead Railway Co., 103; absorbed by L. & N.W.R., 119 Chili, 189 Chili coal mines, 187 Chilian Revolution, The _Rising Star_ and the, 126 China, P. & O. Co. service to, 180; ships for, 206 China trade, 173; ships in, 265 Chinese paddle-wheels, ancient, 4 Cigar (shaped) ships, 375, 380 City of Dublin Steam Packet Co. _See_ Dublin Clark, Edwin, and floating docks, 363 Clark and Standfield and floating docks, 355, 361 Cleopatra’s Needle, 341 Clippers, Yankee wooden, 194 Clyde, Bell’s steamboat on the, 62; first Cunarders built on the, 151; first steamer on the, 28; steamers on the, in 1818, 76. _See also_ Glasgow Clyde ferries, 366 Clyde to Liverpool, first passenger-steamer, 95 Coach fare, Scotland to London, 85 Coal at Suez, 166 Coal consumption, 229; of turbines, 309; in early voyages across Atlantic, 142 Coal, difficulty of carrying, for long voyages, 169 Coalfields, Midland, 213 Coaling for steamers, 256 Coastal steam-ship service, development of, 80; British, 71 Coasting trade of the United Kingdom in 1822-39, 76, 77 Cochrane, Hon. William E., 127, 129 Cockerill (Belgian firm), 321 “Coffin brigs,” 149 Colden, Cadwallader D., on Robert Fulton, 26 Coles, Capt., and cupola vessels, 330; tripod masts, 332; drowned, 334 Collier belt conveyors, 349 Colliers, screw, 214 Collier, steam, with a screw, first, 213 Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., Ontario, 55 Collins, Mrs., and children drowned, 160 Collins, Mr. K. Edward, New York, 155 Collins Line, 153, 155 _et seq._; construction of ships, 158; secures premier position, 159; extravagances and losses, 159; subsidy reduced and line ceased, 161; service, 240 Collisions, intentional, 53 Colon, service to, 191 Commercial Steam Packet Co., 111 Compagnie Belge Maritime du Congo, 299 Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 267 Compañia de Vapores Correos Interinsulares Canarios, 299 Confederate States of America, steamers, 90, 98, 174; commissioners, 262 Connecticut River, Morey’s steamboat on, 24 Continental passenger traffic, 105 Cootes, Mr., Walker-on-Tyne, 211, 213 Cork Steamship Co., 97, 139 Corrugated steam-ship, 349 Craggs, R., & Sons, Ltd., 348, 349 Cramp, Messrs., Philadelphia, 256, 291, 340 Crimean War, 98; iron vessel in the, 316; and shipbuilding yards, 319; floating batteries, 312, 320; P. & O. steamers employed, 180; steam-ships in the, 312; transports, 183, 239, 262 Cruisers, armed mercantile, 287, 291 Cunard Line, 281-287; first Cunarder based on Manx steamer, 87; beginnings, 150; sizes, &c. of first steamers, 151; increase of business, 152; builds iron ships, 153; rivalry with Inman Line, 240; first iron steamer, 243; last paddle-steamer, 246; adopt screw-steamers, 246 Cunard, Mr. Samuel, 134, 149 Curling, Young & Co., Messrs., 138, 146, 187 Curtis turbines, 338 Cutters in Channel Islands service, 109 Cutwaters, straight, 158 Dalswinton, 58 Davey, Mr. W. J., 299 Dawson’s steamer, London-Gravesend, 70 Day Line, 49, 51 Day, Summers & Co., 114 Decks for passengers, 42 Delaware River, early steamboats on the, 25, 29 Dempster, John, 299 Denny Bros., Dumbarton, ships by, 96, 105, 281, 310 Dent & Co., 203 Destroyers, 336 Dewey floating dock, 362 Dicey, Capt., 377 Dickenson, Robert, and iron ships, 195 Dieppe-Honfleur route, 108 Displacement, theory of, 30, 193 Ditchburn and Mare, Blackwall, ships by, 233, 234, 260, 313, 371, 372 Dixon, Sir Raylton, & Co., Ltd., 346 Docks, dry, difficulties of, 353; floating, 352-363 Dod, Daniel, 123 Dodd, Capt., of the _Thames_, 67 Dominion Line, 243, 288 Donaldson Line, 255 Dover-Calais service, 72, 105; designs to prevent sea-sickness, 377-379; race, paddle _v._ screw, 259; proposed railway ferry, 366 Doxford, Messrs., and the rolling of ships’ plates, 345; and shifting cargo in bulk, 346, 351 Dramatic Line, 155 Dublin and Liverpool Steam Navigation Co., 73, 74 Dublin and London Steam Packet Co., 176 Dublin, City of, Steam Packet Co., 72, 74, 89; service to London, 97; Irish mail service, 102-104; and transatlantic service, 144 Dublin-London service, 97 Dublin-Wexford service, 98 Duck-foot paddles, 7, 27, 207 Dudgeon, Messrs. J. & W., ships and engines by, 108, 184, 186, 234, 264, 265, 322; expansion engines and screw propellers, 256; first apply twin-screws, 325 Duncan, R. (shipbuilder), 151 Dundas, Lord, 28, 57, 59 Dundee, Perth, and London Shipping Co., 87 Dundonald, Lord, 127, 129 Dundrum Bay, _Great Britain_ ashore, 225 Dupuy de Lome, M., 320 Durham, Capt., 264 Dutch steamers, 76 Dynamite gun, 339 East, communication between England and the, 164 East India Co. and steamers to India, 166; inefficiency of service, 176; services, 180, 181; iron ships for, 317 East Indiamen with auxiliary steam, 167 Eastern Archipelago Co., 235 Eastern Navigation Co., and the _Great Eastern_, 270 _et seq._ Eckford, Henry, naval architect, 42 Edinburgh and Leith Shipping Co., 84 Edinburgh-London service, 81; by sea, 84 Edward VII., yachts of, 371 Egyptian royal yachts (Khedive’s), 372, 374 Elbing-Schichau Works, 303 Elder, Alexander, 299 Elder, Dempster & Co., 262, 298, 299 Elder, John, 229 Elder, John, & Co., Govan, 108, 109, 249, 250, 251, 282, 306 Electric lighting on steamers, 242; incandescent lamps, 281 Ellerman Line, 291 Ellice, Mr. Edward, and Chilian independence, 128 Emigrant traffic to America, 238 Engines: compound, 185, 187, 261; of earliest boats, 199 _et seq._; gas vacuum, 211; Ogden’s, 219; multiple-expansion, 229, 256, 306; reciprocating, 286; triple-expansion, 296; high-pressure, 306; turbine, 307; reciprocating and turbine, 310; hot-air, 384; piston engine development, 387 English Channel Steamship Co., 377 English river steamers, construction of, 46 Ericsson, John, hot-air engines, 384; screw propellers, 170, 215, 218 Ericsson Shipping Co., 349 Ericsson’s _Monitor_, 329 “Etoile” engine, 210 European and Australian Steam Navigation Co., 184, 185 Excursions in early steamboats, 43 Exhibition of 1851, extra traffic from, 107 Fairfield Co., Govan, 96, 109, 301 Fall River Line, 46, 47 Falmouth-Mediterranean service, 176 Fares, passenger, under competition, 74 Faron, Mr., 158 Farragut, Admiral, 175 Fauber (American engineer) and hydroplane, 386 Fawcett & Preston, engines by, 144, 148, 177 Ferguson, Mr. John, 206 Ferry steamers for railway trains, 363-366 Ficket, Francis (Ficket and Crocker), 123 Finland ice-breaker, 369 Fishbourne, Admiral, 316 Fishguard-Rosslare service, 116 Fitch, John, as inventor of steamboats, 21; his ideas taken by Fulton, 23, 24 Fleetwood-Dublin service, 102 Fletcher, W. & A., Co., Hoboken, 51 Floating docks, 352-363 Folkstone-Boulogne service, 106 Forbes, Mr. R. B., Boston, 170 Ford’s (Edward) patent of 1646, 8 Forenade Line of Copenhagen, 117 Fortanini hydroplan, 385 Forth and Clyde Canal, 57, 59 Forwood Line, 300 France-England, first steamer communication between, 72 Franco-German War, 115 Franklin, Benjamin, 21 Freeman, Mr., of Chipping Campden, 13 French Government, experiments in warships, 338; and Crimean War transports, 240 French steamers entering British ports, 76 French Transatlantic Co., 115 Fulton, Robert, as inventor of steamboats, 19; and drawings of John Fitch, 23, 24; financed by Livingston, 25; his career, 25; experiments with submarines, 26; corresponds with Lord Stanhope, 27; steamboat experiments, 28; relations with Symington, 28; the _Clermont_, 30; list of his steamboats, 35; relations with Bell & Miller, 61 Funnels, four, 92; masts used as, 212, 218 Fyfe, William, of Fairlie, 66 Galley, Illyrian, propelled by oxen, 6 Galway-America service, 98; to Portland, Maine, 162; to Newfoundland, route, 162 Galway Line to America, 161-163 Gas-lighting experiment, 253 Gas-machinery propulsion, 340 General Iron Screw-Collier Co., 233 General Screw Shipping Co., 233 General Steam Navigation Co., 81-83; joint service with G.E.R., 117 Genevois (J. A.) propellers (1759), 8 German Emperor’s yacht, 371 German Navy, 303 German shipbuilding, 302; State-developed, 303 Germania shipbuilding establishment, 303 Germanischer Lloyd, 302 Germany as a Naval Power, 339 Gibbs, Antony, & Sons, 227 Gibbs, Bright & Co., 226 Glasgow ferries, 366 Glasgow-Inverness service, 100 Glasgow-Ireland service, 100 Glasgow-Liverpool service, 100. _See also_ Clyde Glasgow, transatlantic service from, 237 Glasgow and Dublin Screw Steam Packet Co., 101 Glasgow and New York Steamship Co., 240 Gordon & Co., Deptford, 165 Goudie, James, 134 Graham, Osbourne, & Co., 349 Grand Trunk Railway, 255 Gray, Wm., & Co., Ltd., West Hartlepool, 347 Gray’s (McFarlane) steam steering gear, 241 Grayson & Leadley, Liverpool, 73 Great Central Railway Co.’s steamers, 118 Great Eastern Railway Co.’s steamers, 116-118 Great Western Railway Co.’s service to the Channel Islands, 112; other services, 116 Great Western Steamship Co. formed, 138; and American mails, 150; and ocean screw steamer, 220 Green, F., & Co., 294 Green, R. & H., & Co., 167, 234, 295, 373 Griffiths, John Wm., 339 Griffith’s propeller, 245 Grimsby-Continent service, 118 Guion, Mr. S. B., founds the Guion Line, 247; progress of the line, 248-251; death of Mr. Guion and line dissolved, 251 Gurley Bros., 108 Hamburg floating dock, 362 Hamburg-Amerika Linie, 267, 302, 305-306 Hamburg Reiherstieg Shipbuilding Works, 302, 303 Hamilton, William, & Co., Ltd., Port Glasgow, 348 Harland & Wolff, ships built by, 252, 289, 293, 297, 305 Harnden & Co., Boston, 155 Harroway and Dixon cantilever framed steamers, 346 Harwich-Antwerp service, 117 Harwich-Esbjerg service, 117 Harwich-Hook of Holland service, 117 Harwich-Rotterdam service, 117 Havana floating dock, 353 Hawthorn, engine by, 212 Hendersons of Glasgow, 264 Hepworth, Mr. John, 382 Hero of Alexandria and steam, 9 Heysham Harbour, 121 Heysham-Isle of Man service, 121 Hodgson, James, Liverpool, on cost of iron ships, 230; introduces tubular iron vessels, 235 Hogg & Co., New York, 172 Hogging and sagging, 46, 194, 268 Hogging frame, Stevens’, 46, 194 Hollar’s submarine (1653), 375 Holyhead-Dublin service, 72, 103, 110 Holyhead-Greenore service, 120 Holyhead-Kingstown service, 204 Hong-Kong-Sans Francisco, White Star service, 243 Hong-Kong-Shanghai service, 203 Hook of Holland, 117 Horseley & Co., Tipton, 110 Horseley Iron Works, 195 Hough, Samuel, & Co., 100 Howden’s forced draught, 366 Howell’s “homogeneous metal,” 279 Huddart, Parker & Co. Proprietary, Ltd., 97 Hudson River steamboats, 25, 29, 30, 47; screw boats, 207 Hudson River Day Line, 49 Hulls, double, 270, 347, 375; triple, 388 Hulls, Jonathan, as inventor of the steamboat, 12 Humber, Continental service from the, 118 Hunt, Seth, of Louisiana, 45 Hydraulic propulsion, 321-325 Hydrocurve, 385 Hydroplan, 385 Hydroplane, 386 Iceberg, Guion liner’s escape from, 250 Ice-breaking steamers, 367-371 Imperial Direct West India Mail service, 299 India, first steamer built in, 202; steam communication with, 164; Government subsidy, 164; purchase vessel, 165; mails to, 176, 177; traffic to, 184 Indian Mutiny, P. & O. steamers employed owing to, 180 Indian rivers, navigation of, 205 Indus, the, steamers on, 202 Inglis, A. & J., Glasgow, ships built by, 86, 184, 185, 206, 374 Inman and International Line, 290-291 Inman Line, 237-243; rivalry with Cunard Line, 240; absorbed by American Line, 256 Inman, Mr. William, 237, 243 Intercolonial Railway, Canada, 255 International Navigation Co. acquires Inman steamers, 243 Ireland, early iron ships in, 196 Ireland-England, first steam communication, 71 “Irish Brigade,” 262 Irish cross-Channel service rivalry, 74 Irish mail, &c., traffic, 102, 119 Iron barge, experimental, 195 Ironclads, advent of, 320; without masts, 333 Iron ships: first on Long Island Sound, 47; first cross-Channel, 75;