Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
|
show 7 more comments
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
14
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
5
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
2
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
2
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
3
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
edited yesterday
JMS
asked yesterday
JMSJMS
14.5k342113
14.5k342113
14
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
5
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
2
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
2
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
3
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
14
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
5
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
2
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
2
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
3
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago
14
14
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
5
5
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
2
2
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
2
2
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
3
3
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago
|
show 7 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #1 and #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.
Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If it's a military operation, will all the ports be friendly? If not you need to keep sails on hand.
As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Even when the infrastructure was in place, why abandon a sunk asset which can still produce some revenue?
Eric Newby wrote The Last Great Grain Race about his 1938 voyage as crew from Port Lincoln, South Australia to Glasgow, Scotland. These tall ships were carrying wheat grown on the plains of South Australia to the UK market. It did not matter to the wheat that the voyage was slower and less comfortable than a steamship. It was cheaper, which mattered to the purchasers of the wheat.
Conversely, migrants from the UK to Australia would book a steamship berth. The South Australian Maritime Museum has a hands-on display of the berths of the sailing era, the early steamship era, and the later liner era. Each has a substantial rise in comfort: from a hay-filled mattress shared with others, to a dormitory room of 6-8, to a twin-share room. The displays also note the fall in voyage duration; and the fall in mortality with each era (especially as the abundant power available in steamships allowed frozen food to be kept refrigerated).
I realise this answer is about the final years of sail. But I hope you find it useful to know how those last years were played out in far-away South Australia, home of last of the working sail ports.
add a comment |
Evolution is slow
You have fleets over fleets of sailing ships, and then someone, somewhere begins to build steamers. First, the steamer-wharf capacity needs time to ramp-up; then, the steamers need to gain superiority over the sailing ships; and finally the sailing ships need to be phased out. You simply just don't scrap sailing ship just because steamers are available.
For comparison, even in World War 2 plenty of horses have been used for various tasks. And WW2 is several decades later than the motor-car had been invented.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
Maybe it was that most, if not all, of then current ships were sailing ships to start with, and using the steam engine at first was thought to be an added on means of propulsion. However, that apparently changed later as the steam engine became more reliable as well as the availability of the fuel. A big downside of sails was that there were numerous places on the globe where the wind was not consistent or best used for sailing. Reliable steam engines, with enough fuel, negated the use of sails.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
add a comment |
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Steve BirdSteve Bird
13.1k35867
13.1k35867
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
add a comment |
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
9
9
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
yesterday
2
2
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.
– Pieter Geerkens
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
yesterday
4
4
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
@GalacticCowboy Given how much later Great Power overseas colonial competition revolved around securing coaling stations, the fuel issue wasn't just one of economy or shipping space. There were broad areas of the globe where you might want to sail where you couldn't just pick up a load of coal when you wanted one.
– tbrookside
14 hours ago
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #1 and #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.
Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If it's a military operation, will all the ports be friendly? If not you need to keep sails on hand.
As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #1 and #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.
Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If it's a military operation, will all the ports be friendly? If not you need to keep sails on hand.
As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #1 and #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.
Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If it's a military operation, will all the ports be friendly? If not you need to keep sails on hand.
As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #1 and #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.
Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If it's a military operation, will all the ports be friendly? If not you need to keep sails on hand.
As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.
edited 12 hours ago
answered yesterday
AllInOneAllInOne
1,9772722
1,9772722
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
add a comment |
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
3
3
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.
– Mazura
yesterday
3
3
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.
– Separatrix
19 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
This should not be underestimated. A huge driver of 19th century British colonialism was the need for coaling stations. This is why they were so keen on owning resource poor Islands (St Helena, The Falklands, etc) out in the middle of nowhere.
– Steven Burnap
8 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
As an example of the sort of problem caused by a lack of coaling stations, see the prelude to the Battle of Tsushima Strait, where the Russian Baltic Fleet had to sail halfway around the world without a single coaling stop.
– Mark
6 hours ago
add a comment |
Even when the infrastructure was in place, why abandon a sunk asset which can still produce some revenue?
Eric Newby wrote The Last Great Grain Race about his 1938 voyage as crew from Port Lincoln, South Australia to Glasgow, Scotland. These tall ships were carrying wheat grown on the plains of South Australia to the UK market. It did not matter to the wheat that the voyage was slower and less comfortable than a steamship. It was cheaper, which mattered to the purchasers of the wheat.
Conversely, migrants from the UK to Australia would book a steamship berth. The South Australian Maritime Museum has a hands-on display of the berths of the sailing era, the early steamship era, and the later liner era. Each has a substantial rise in comfort: from a hay-filled mattress shared with others, to a dormitory room of 6-8, to a twin-share room. The displays also note the fall in voyage duration; and the fall in mortality with each era (especially as the abundant power available in steamships allowed frozen food to be kept refrigerated).
I realise this answer is about the final years of sail. But I hope you find it useful to know how those last years were played out in far-away South Australia, home of last of the working sail ports.
add a comment |
Even when the infrastructure was in place, why abandon a sunk asset which can still produce some revenue?
Eric Newby wrote The Last Great Grain Race about his 1938 voyage as crew from Port Lincoln, South Australia to Glasgow, Scotland. These tall ships were carrying wheat grown on the plains of South Australia to the UK market. It did not matter to the wheat that the voyage was slower and less comfortable than a steamship. It was cheaper, which mattered to the purchasers of the wheat.
Conversely, migrants from the UK to Australia would book a steamship berth. The South Australian Maritime Museum has a hands-on display of the berths of the sailing era, the early steamship era, and the later liner era. Each has a substantial rise in comfort: from a hay-filled mattress shared with others, to a dormitory room of 6-8, to a twin-share room. The displays also note the fall in voyage duration; and the fall in mortality with each era (especially as the abundant power available in steamships allowed frozen food to be kept refrigerated).
I realise this answer is about the final years of sail. But I hope you find it useful to know how those last years were played out in far-away South Australia, home of last of the working sail ports.
add a comment |
Even when the infrastructure was in place, why abandon a sunk asset which can still produce some revenue?
Eric Newby wrote The Last Great Grain Race about his 1938 voyage as crew from Port Lincoln, South Australia to Glasgow, Scotland. These tall ships were carrying wheat grown on the plains of South Australia to the UK market. It did not matter to the wheat that the voyage was slower and less comfortable than a steamship. It was cheaper, which mattered to the purchasers of the wheat.
Conversely, migrants from the UK to Australia would book a steamship berth. The South Australian Maritime Museum has a hands-on display of the berths of the sailing era, the early steamship era, and the later liner era. Each has a substantial rise in comfort: from a hay-filled mattress shared with others, to a dormitory room of 6-8, to a twin-share room. The displays also note the fall in voyage duration; and the fall in mortality with each era (especially as the abundant power available in steamships allowed frozen food to be kept refrigerated).
I realise this answer is about the final years of sail. But I hope you find it useful to know how those last years were played out in far-away South Australia, home of last of the working sail ports.
Even when the infrastructure was in place, why abandon a sunk asset which can still produce some revenue?
Eric Newby wrote The Last Great Grain Race about his 1938 voyage as crew from Port Lincoln, South Australia to Glasgow, Scotland. These tall ships were carrying wheat grown on the plains of South Australia to the UK market. It did not matter to the wheat that the voyage was slower and less comfortable than a steamship. It was cheaper, which mattered to the purchasers of the wheat.
Conversely, migrants from the UK to Australia would book a steamship berth. The South Australian Maritime Museum has a hands-on display of the berths of the sailing era, the early steamship era, and the later liner era. Each has a substantial rise in comfort: from a hay-filled mattress shared with others, to a dormitory room of 6-8, to a twin-share room. The displays also note the fall in voyage duration; and the fall in mortality with each era (especially as the abundant power available in steamships allowed frozen food to be kept refrigerated).
I realise this answer is about the final years of sail. But I hope you find it useful to know how those last years were played out in far-away South Australia, home of last of the working sail ports.
answered 15 hours ago
vk5tuvk5tu
1511
1511
add a comment |
add a comment |
Evolution is slow
You have fleets over fleets of sailing ships, and then someone, somewhere begins to build steamers. First, the steamer-wharf capacity needs time to ramp-up; then, the steamers need to gain superiority over the sailing ships; and finally the sailing ships need to be phased out. You simply just don't scrap sailing ship just because steamers are available.
For comparison, even in World War 2 plenty of horses have been used for various tasks. And WW2 is several decades later than the motor-car had been invented.
add a comment |
Evolution is slow
You have fleets over fleets of sailing ships, and then someone, somewhere begins to build steamers. First, the steamer-wharf capacity needs time to ramp-up; then, the steamers need to gain superiority over the sailing ships; and finally the sailing ships need to be phased out. You simply just don't scrap sailing ship just because steamers are available.
For comparison, even in World War 2 plenty of horses have been used for various tasks. And WW2 is several decades later than the motor-car had been invented.
add a comment |
Evolution is slow
You have fleets over fleets of sailing ships, and then someone, somewhere begins to build steamers. First, the steamer-wharf capacity needs time to ramp-up; then, the steamers need to gain superiority over the sailing ships; and finally the sailing ships need to be phased out. You simply just don't scrap sailing ship just because steamers are available.
For comparison, even in World War 2 plenty of horses have been used for various tasks. And WW2 is several decades later than the motor-car had been invented.
Evolution is slow
You have fleets over fleets of sailing ships, and then someone, somewhere begins to build steamers. First, the steamer-wharf capacity needs time to ramp-up; then, the steamers need to gain superiority over the sailing ships; and finally the sailing ships need to be phased out. You simply just don't scrap sailing ship just because steamers are available.
For comparison, even in World War 2 plenty of horses have been used for various tasks. And WW2 is several decades later than the motor-car had been invented.
answered 15 hours ago
Dohn JoeDohn Joe
908413
908413
add a comment |
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
edited 21 hours ago
answered yesterday
JosJos
9,31012246
9,31012246
add a comment |
add a comment |
Maybe it was that most, if not all, of then current ships were sailing ships to start with, and using the steam engine at first was thought to be an added on means of propulsion. However, that apparently changed later as the steam engine became more reliable as well as the availability of the fuel. A big downside of sails was that there were numerous places on the globe where the wind was not consistent or best used for sailing. Reliable steam engines, with enough fuel, negated the use of sails.
New contributor
add a comment |
Maybe it was that most, if not all, of then current ships were sailing ships to start with, and using the steam engine at first was thought to be an added on means of propulsion. However, that apparently changed later as the steam engine became more reliable as well as the availability of the fuel. A big downside of sails was that there were numerous places on the globe where the wind was not consistent or best used for sailing. Reliable steam engines, with enough fuel, negated the use of sails.
New contributor
add a comment |
Maybe it was that most, if not all, of then current ships were sailing ships to start with, and using the steam engine at first was thought to be an added on means of propulsion. However, that apparently changed later as the steam engine became more reliable as well as the availability of the fuel. A big downside of sails was that there were numerous places on the globe where the wind was not consistent or best used for sailing. Reliable steam engines, with enough fuel, negated the use of sails.
New contributor
Maybe it was that most, if not all, of then current ships were sailing ships to start with, and using the steam engine at first was thought to be an added on means of propulsion. However, that apparently changed later as the steam engine became more reliable as well as the availability of the fuel. A big downside of sails was that there were numerous places on the globe where the wind was not consistent or best used for sailing. Reliable steam engines, with enough fuel, negated the use of sails.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
oranguestoranguest
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
14
Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.
– Mark C. Wallace♦
yesterday
5
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
yesterday
2
@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.
– RonJohn
yesterday
2
The logistics problem is significantly more problematic for navy ships than for commercial ships. Navy ships get sent to places where there are unfriendly people (that's pretty much the whole point of sending them); those unfriendly people may already control the coaling station, or if not, they may attempt to control it. Commercial ships get sent places where the only question is "can you pay?"
– Martin Bonner
14 hours ago
3
We invented computers about 70 years ago. Why do we still use paper for some things?
– J...
11 hours ago