engines and steering

[Waverley]

Hi all

One of the posts that disappeared last week was a question by a new member regarding the positioning of paddle steamer engines and the effect on steering. It wasn't IIRC a question that could be answered spontaneously, but I had given the matter a little bit of thought (beats counting sheep) and had at least a partial answer.

Unfortunately, I have now forgotten the detail of the question - and don't want to type in a long response that doesn't address the original issues. If the original poster (sorry, forgotten who you were) could re-post, I will be happy to respond.

Regards

David

[Frederick Lesco]

I am not the one who posted the original question, but I have a similar query. Was it common to have both paddle wheels driven from the same shaft (and engine), or was it usual to have each wheel driven independently? I think I read a thread here suggesting it was not common to have them driven separately, but in a book I read recently (Under Tow, by Donald M Baird) it was mentioned that even at a fairly late date the Royal Navy used paddle wheel tugs because with separately driven paddle wheels they were considered to be very maneuverable. I’m not really familiar with paddle tugs, and would like to learn more from anyone who may have an answer. I hope I’m not missing something which is already on the Paddleducks site, but if so perhaps someone can direct me to the appropriate location. Thanks for any help.
 Fred

[scotfriend]

HI PD's,

as far as i know most of the passenger steamers and ferry's had on engine for both wheel's, but some of the tugs had independent paddlewheels. In the book "Fifty years of navel tugs" of Bill Hannan you will find a lot of information about these tugs. the first with IPW was in 1900 the Advice from the Dromedary class and the last was 1958 the Griper of the Directer class. The tugs with independent wheels are, the Dromedary class, Robust class, the Pert, and the Director class.

Maybe some of you know more then i found in the book of Bill Hannan.

Kind regards Hans

[Bierjunge]

HI PD's,

as far as i know most of the passenger steamers and ferry's had on engine for both wheel's, but some of the tugs had independent paddlewheels.  

Regarding ferries:
At least here in the USA, most (if not all) sidewheel RAILWAY ferries
I am aware of, in fact had independently driven wheels!
There's a simple reason for this:
An undivided wheel shaft would have fouled the car deck. And the
car deck usually was quite low, to provide a low center of mass.

As bonus, the independent engine provided very agile steering properties
and the ability to turn within the vessel's own length. This was useful especially for river ferries.

For a number of examples for such railway ferries, see
http://www.paddleducks.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2601

Regards, Moritz

[RickF]

In the back of my mind I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the UK it was a Board of Trade requirement for passenger ships that the paddles were not independently powered. I believe this stemmed from an accident in the 19th century.

Rick

[Walter Snowdon]

Hi Rick and all. The "BOARD OF TRADE" ruling regarding sparate paddle engines is one of those legends which grows like a conspiracy theory following any notable tragedy. The accident refered to was the massive loss of life when the paddle steamer PRINCESS ALICE was run down by a collier and the legend of the ruling grew from there!

There are two distinct types of paddlers, tugs and passenger/cargo ships.
Dealing with paddle tugs first. The vast majority of sidewheel tugs were built and used in Britain where the rivers  and harbours are generaly small and difficult to maneauvre in and  the the ability to turn on the spot was a distinct advantage, especialy when moving large ships. Hence two separate engines which could be stopped and reversed easily. Paddle tugs of this type lasted well into the 1960s  where I live (north east coast of England). When I was at marine college at south shields  (1956/7) I remember at least 20 of them in the River Tyne alone! The only modern tugs with the same ability are the modern Schottle/azimuth drive tugs.

The Royal navy kept paddle tugs for a very long time for their ability to move aircraft carriers and as passenger transports around the Naval dockyards which were always cramped. Indeed, they had a large class of diesel electric paddlers built post war which with their low superstructure could move under the overhanging and angled flight decks of carriers. These were VERY succesful tugs.

Passenger Paddlers ( I speek here mainly of the British Isles) were seagoing as well as river craft and so had to contend with tidal conditions which made coming into small harbours and jetties pretty difficult. The earlier paddlers worked on low steam pressure and to get anywhere with the week engines of their day had to have two engines driving separate paddles which spent most of their time "Dogged" together.
As engines became more efficient and powerfull the requirement (and cost) of two engines dissappeered. Even with two engines the skippers found the complicated  procedure of  declutching, stopping an engine (no easy task on the early Oscilators) and reversing took so long the risk of losing control and hitting a pier was always there! Hence the gradual change to a single engine/solid shaft as in Waverley, Kingswear Castle and all the other beautiful UK Paddlers.
The UK was a peculiar situation having to have some seagoing capabilities, whereas the rest of the world were in the main river, lake and (afew) estuary steamers.
Sorry if this is my usual long winded rambling, but I put it down to my age.!!! If you need anything clarifying or expanded on dont hesitate to ask.  Regards, walter.

[PJ]

I hope you won't take offence at this but I'm  truly puzzled by your statement "The UK was a peculiar  situation having to have some seagoing capabilities, whereas the rest of the  world were in the main river, lake and (afew) estuary steamers."  
 Â 
 Maybe I'm really missing something here and if so I apologize  in advance, but if I read this correctly, it's an astounding statement and one  which completely baffles me coming from someone who purports to have such  an extensive knowledge of paddlers.  I'm sure most on this forum can  think of numerous paddlers from other countries which had the same seagoing  capabilities as their UK counterparts. Surely you wouldn't dispute  there were hundreds of sea going paddlers that plied almost every  ocean of the world for the better part of the nineteenth century?  Just one  example...seagoing paddlers designed and built in North America which  navigated up and down the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA and  Canada for nearly fifty years.  What about the early Collins  and Cunard Transatlantic paddlers? You make it sound  like no countries except the UK had paddlers with  seagoing capabilities OR that no other countries of the world had to have  paddlers with the same seagoing capabilities.  Do you honestly  believe "the rest of the world were in the main river, lake and  (afew) estuary steamers." ??
 Â 
 And another statement I have to respectfully  question is... "There are two distinct types of paddlers, tugs and  passenger/cargo ships." Would you not consider paddle Warships  another "distinct" type and maybe ferries too? These two  types were often quite "distinct" from tugs and passenger/cargo  ships. 
 Â 
 And finally...The "BOARD OF TRADE" ruling  regarding sparate paddle engines is one of those legends which grows like a  conspiracy theory following any notable tragedy. The accident refered to was the  massive loss of life when the paddle steamer PRINCESS ALICE was run down by a  collier and the legend of the ruling grew from  there!  This sounds like a very bold  statement of fact and since none of us were around in  1878 it's fair to suppose you base this on some kind of authority.  Or  is this actually based on new evidence as I've never heard of  this before.  You state it's a "legend" which sprang up from  the Princess Alice/Byford Castle disaster, an actual event, and  legends often arise only where there is a lack of information and  communication giving rise to hearsay rather then from a well documented  event. Are you suggesting there is actually the basis for a "conspiracy  theory" in this accident ? If so please expand on it. The Princess Alice  disaster was extensively reported on in the day and I have read many  accounts of it including the "Board of Trade" findings and the  Coroner's reports and, as far as I can see, it has never been suggested the  vessel went out of control because of  "separate paddle wheels".   The initial findings pointed to human error by the bridge crew of the  "Princess Alice". Admittedly there is discrepancy as to blame which seems to  have arisen from confusion over navigation lights and no clearly  defined laws or procedures when ships encountered each other in  rivers at that date and it's generally thought both ships were to blame in  some way. For instance here's a quote from Port Cities  web site:
 
The jury returned a verdict of Death by Misadventure,  accepting that the collision was an accident. However, they criticized the  commanders of both vessels, claiming that:

• the collier should have stopped her engines earlier      
• the paddle steamer should have stopped or made for the    north side of the river.

The jury also criticized the number of passengers on  the Princess Alice and the poor provision of lifeboats and  lifebuoys.
 "While the local coroner was presiding over the inquest,  the Board of Trade was conducting its own hearing. They concluded that both  commanders had shown poor judgement. They recommended that two vessels  under steam should always 'pass each other on the port side'.
 
The outcome
As a result of the Board of Trade enquiry, new rules  for navigating the Thames came into force in 1880. The new  regulations:

• tightened up the procedures for steamships passing on the river  
• reduced the number of passengers ships could carry  
• increased the number of lifebelts vessels had to provide for their    passengers."

Again categorically no mention here of independent paddle wheels having  contributed in any way to the accident so I'd be interested to  know how your idea that the Princess Alice/Byford Castle collision  generated such a "conspiracy theory" concerning them came about?  If  on the other hand this is your own personal hypothesis, it would be a good idea  to say so. 
 Â 
 As you say in your last sentence "If  you need anything clarifying or expanded on dont hesitate to ask".  Â I hope you'll take a moment to clarify the record as I'm  baffled by statements made with such apparent certainty and  authority.
 Â 
 Thank you
 Â 
 

  ----- Original Message -----
   From:    Walter Snowdon (research@paddleducks.co.uk)
   To: research@paddleducks.co.uk (research@paddleducks.co.uk)
   Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:58    AM
   Subject: RE: engines and steering
   

   
Hi Rick and all. The "BOARD OF TRADE" ruling regarding    sparate paddle engines is one of those legends which grows like a conspiracy    theory following any notable tragedy. The accident refered to was the massive    loss of life when the paddle steamer PRINCESS ALICE was run down by a collier    and the legend of the ruling grew from there!

There are two distinct    types of paddlers, tugs and passenger/cargo ships.
Deaing with paddle tugs    first. The vast majority of sidewheel tugs were built and used in Britain    where the rivers and harbours are generaly small and difficult to maneauvre in    and the the ability to turn on the spot was a distinct advantage, especialy    when moving large ships. Hence two separate engines which could be stopped and    reversed easily. Paddle tugs of this type lasted well into the 1960s where I    live (north east coast of England). When I was at marine college at south    shields (1956/7) I remember at least 20 of them in the River Tyne alone! The    only modern tugs with the same ability are the modern Schottle/azimuth drive    tugs.

The Royal navy kept paddle tugs for a very long time for their    ability to move aircraft carriers and as passenger transports around the Naval    dockyards which were always cramped. Indeed, they had a large class of diesel    electric paddlers built post war which with their low superstructure could    move under the overhanging and angled flight decks of carriers. These were    VERY succesful tugs.

Passenger Paddlers ( I speek here mainly of the    British Isles) wereseagoing as well as river craft and so had to contend with    tidal conditions which made coming into small harbours and jetties pretty    difficult. The earlier paddlers worked on low steam pressure and to get    anywhere with the week engines of their day had to have two engines driving    separate paddles which spent most of their time "Dogged" together.
As    engines became more efficient and powerfull the requirement (and cost) of two    engines dissappeered. Even with two engines the skippers found the complicated    procedure of declutching, stopping an engine (no easy task on the early    Oscilators) and reversing took so long the risk of losing control and hitting    a pier was always there! Hence the gradual change to a single engine/solid    shaft as in Waverley, Kingswear Castle and all the other beautiful UK    Paddlers.
The UK was a peculiar situation having to have some seagoing    capabilities, whereas the rest of the world were in the main river, lake and    (afew) estuary steamers.
Sorry if this is my usual long winded rambling,    but I put it down to my age.!!! If you need anything clarifying or expanded on    dont hesitate to ask. Regards, walter.



-------------------- m2f    --------------------

Exported by Paddleducks Mail System.

http://www.paddleducks.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11628#11628

--------------------    m2f --------------------

[AlistairD]

Paul wrote, replying to  Walter

 

 
I hope you won't take offence at this but I'm    truly puzzled by your statement "The UK was a    peculiar situation having to have some seagoing capabilities, whereas the rest    of the world were in the main river, lake and (afew) estuary    steamers." 

 
What about the early Cunarders, the    paddle steamers that ran across the Pacific Ocean, and those that ran from the    US East Coast to California before the Panama Canal? Not forgetting paddle    steamers running from Germany to Heligoland, and on the Baltic to Sweden, and    US Coastal steamers  
Alistair

[Waverley]

Hi all

This topic isn't going to go away, is it?

I've been reading about Clyde and other (mostly British) paddlers for almost 40 years, and Paddleducks is the only place I can recall seeing it regularly suggested that commercial paddlers (ie excluding tugs) used disconnecting engines at any time in their history, with the exception of certain unusual examples such as the Queensferry passage and Woolwich free ferry (both vehicle carriers) and the QUEEN OF THE NORTH at Blackpool.

I also recall reading somewhere (I wish I could remember where as it may help the debate) that early references to "two engines" merely meant two cylinders and most emphatically did not imply disconnecting engines.    

While absence of evidence is not proof, I would suggest that Captain James Williamson's "Clyde Passenger Steamer" published 1904 gives us a clue.   For those that have not read it, this is a history of Clyde steamers from the COMET of 1812 onwards - Captain James was a member of a family of steamboat owners, was a captain at age 20 and later became the first manager of the railway owned Caledonian Steam Packet - a man steeped in steamer lore with friends and contacts who went back to the earliest days.

The book makes continual references to improvements - in engine styles, compounding, boiler designs,  feathering floats, hulls etc - and his contemporary readers could see from the book the many differences between the earlier craft and those with which they were familiar.


Captain James does not mention disconnecting engines at any time.   Given the radical difference between these and the state of the art engines of the current (1904) Clyde fleet, and given that the evolution of every other mechanical aspect of that fleet is well covered, I conclude this was not an issue - that disconnecting engines had never been in regular use in Clyde passenger paddlers. If they had been, Captain James would have discussed it.

Regards

David

[Waverley]

HI PD's,

as far as i know most of the passenger steamers and ferry's had on engine for both wheel's, but some of the tugs had independent paddlewheels.  

Regarding ferries:
At least here in the USA, most (if not all) sidewheel RAILWAY ferries
I am aware of, in fact had independently driven wheels!
There's a simple reason for this:
An undivided wheel shaft would have fouled the car deck. And the
car deck usually was quite low, to provide a low center of mass.

As bonus, the independent engine provided very agile steering properties
and the ability to turn within the vessel's own length. This was useful especially for river ferries.

For a number of examples for such railway ferries, see
http://www.paddleducks.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2601

Regards, Moritz

Hi Moritz an and all

That was also the case with the small number of paddle driven train ferries here in Scotland. Duckworth and Langmuir ("Railway and Other Steamers") say "The ship was double ended and had a rudder at bow and stern. Each paddle had its own engine thus avoiding any paddle-shaft across the deck; and the independent action of the paddles assisted in manoeuvering the somewhat ungainly craft into the landing stage ....."

There were 6, built for the North British Railway and its predecessors for the crossings of the estuaries of the Forth and Tay before the current bridges were opened.

LEVIATHAN 1849 - "the first train ferry in the world"
ROBERT NAPIER - 1850
CARRIER - 1858
BALBIRNIE - 1861
KINLOCH - 1862
MIDLOTHIAN - 1881

The Forth bridge opened in 1890, when the 4 survivors were scrapped.

They must have been most difficult to steer - how do you get both paddles revolving at the same speed?   Note that these were not "disconnecting" engines as used in tugs, but totally independent of each other.   I would suspect that their normal journey across the Forth would take about an hour.

Again, though, these were highly unusual ships with a unique design (in the UK at least) for a unique problem (again in the UK) and should not be regarded as typical.

Moritz - does your comment on American train (car) ferried apply to vessels on short crossings such as Detroit - Windsor, or were there also similar train ferry paddlers on the much longer runs operated from, for example, Michigan to Wisconsin by, I think such railroads as the Ann Arbor and the Pere Marquette/Chesapeake & Ohio? Just wondering how different it would need to be for a short as opposed to a long journey?

Regards

David

[Bill Worden]

The open-water Lake Michigan carferries, as well as one on Lake Erie and one service on Lake Ontario, were all screw steamers.  As they ran most or all of the winter, they had to withstand very heavy ice conditions.  The radial wheels on a ferry like the Detroit River steamer LANSDOWNE were effective in river ice, especially as they sucked the floating ice out of the ferry slips and thus avoided ice damage to the pilings.  But on the open lake, sidewheels would not have been able to handle the ice.

Certainly, this created steering issues, but the short river crossing made that a non-issue.  The paddle steamer MICHIGAN of 1833 was intended for the open lake and had two independent beam engines.  She had the reputation of being very hard to keep on course when on compass courses in the open lake.

The Egyptian Nile cruise steamer KARIM was built in Britain in 1917 as a towboat for Mesopotamia. She has a pair of indentical two-cylinder compounds driving her quarter wheels.  Their shafts align and have hubs that can be bolted together, but there was no sign on board that they ever were.  She used the wheels for maneuvering, but must have problems when trying to steer a straight course.

Bill Worden

Bill Worden

[Roderick Smith]

I have an answer back from a Murray captain who has worked on three.

I'll make a special point of looking at Cumberoona's controls on my next voyage: possibly in 7 years if the Murray follows biblical timelines for feast and famine.

Regards,
Roderick B Smith
Rail News Victoria Editor

PV Impulse doesn't have independent control, they can stop one paddle though.
PV Coonawarra can stop one paddle wheel (as per Impulse)

PS Cumberoona has two steam engines: one geared to each paddle wheel.
PV Pride of the Murray and PV Jandra are diesel electric and have the main diesel motor powering two electric motors, one on each paddle wheel.
PV Avoca has two diesel motors, one geared to each paddle wheel

I've driven Cumberoona, Avoca and Pride of the Murray. The ability to have one wheel turning opposite to the other makes these vessels very easy to handle, turn, round-up, move sideways, etc.  There are no real complications or problems ... It's all good for handling.  They have two shafts, one for each wheel.

Most of the steamers in the past, however, had a single paddle shaft, therefore both wheels doing the same thing at the same time. Albury & Gundagai were reported as being able to turn in their own length and I wouldn't be surprised if they had their engines geared, one to each paddle wheel.  I haven't found anything to support that theory though.