Chapter XI (1)

_STEAM NAVIGATION--THE ‘GREAT EASTERN’ STEAM-SHIP, FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE UNDERTAKING TO THE LAUNCH._

A.D. 1851--1857. ÆTATIS 46--52.

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS--THE AUSTRALIAN STEAM NAVIGATION
COMPANY--STATEMENT OF MR. BRUNEL’S PROJECT OF A LINE OF LARGE SHIPS
(JUNE 10, 1852)--ADOPTION OF HIS PLANS BY THE EASTERN STEAM
NAVIGATION COMPANY--EXTRACT FROM A LETTER DESCRIBING THE SCHEME
(JULY 1, 1852)--LETTER TO J. SCOTT RUSSELL, ESQ., ON THE FORM AND
DIMENSIONS OF THE GREAT SHIP (JULY 13, 1852)--REPORT ON MODE OF
PROCEEDING (JULY 21, 1852)--REPORT ON ENQUIRIES RELATING TO THE
DRAUGHT AND FORM OF THE VESSEL (OCTOBER 6, 1852)--REPORT ON THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE APPOINTED TO CONSIDER MR. BRUNEL’S
PLANS (MARCH 21, 1853)--TENDERS INVITED FOR THE SHIP AND
ENGINES--REPORT ON TENDERS (MAY 18, 1853)--PREPARATION OF THE
CONTRACTS AND SPECIFICATIONS--EXTRACTS FROM MR. BRUNEL’S MEMORANDA
(A.D. 1852, 1853, 1854)--LETTER ON HIS POSITION AND DUTIES AS
ENGINEER OF THE COMPANY (AUGUST 16, 1854)--LETTER ON AN ARTICLE IN
A NEWSPAPER (NOVEMBER 16, 1854)--REPORT ON THE UNDERTAKING
(FEBRUARY 5, 1855)--ARRANGEMENTS PROPOSED FOR OBTAINING
ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS--LETTER TO G. B. AIRY, ESQ., ASTRONOMER
ROYAL (OCTOBER 5, 1852)--APPOINTMENT OF MR. WILLIAM HARRISON TO THE
COMMAND OF THE SHIP--MEMORANDUM ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE GREAT SHIP
(OCTOBER, 1855)--LETTER ON THE DUTIES OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MARCH
19, 1857)--SUSPENSION AND RESUMPTION OF THE WORKS.

Mr. Brunel’s earlier labours in connection with the progress of Ocean Steam Navigation have been described in the chapters on the ‘Great Western’ and ‘Great Britain’ steam-ships.[139] The ‘Great Eastern’ is but the result of the application, under different circumstances, of the same principles which had guided him in his previous under-takings, the practical working out of the ‘idea which he had frequently entertained, that, to make long voyages economically and speedily by steam, required the vessels to be large enough to carry the coal for the entire voyage at least outwards; and, unless the facility for obtaining coal was very great at the out port, then for the return voyage also; and that vessels much larger than had been previously built could be navigated with great advantage from the mere effect of size.’[140]

In 1851, four years after the release of the ‘Great Britain’ from Dundrum Bay, Mr. Brunel became again connected with the construction of steam-ships. In that year he was consulted by the Directors of the Australian Mail Company upon the class of vessels which it would be advantageous for them to purchase, in order to carry out their contract for the conveyance of the mails to Australia. He advised them to have ships of from 5,000 to 6,000 tons burden, in order that they might only have to touch for coal at the Cape.

Some of the Directors would not hear of so startling a proposition; but they nevertheless asked Mr. Brunel to become their Engineer; and he retained the post till February 1853. Two ships were built under his direction by Mr. J. Scott Russell--the ‘Victoria’ and the ‘Adelaide.’

It was, no doubt, his connection with the Australian Mail Company that led Mr. Brunel to work out into practical shape the idea of ‘a great ship’ for the Indian or Australian service, which had so long occupied his mind; and it appears that in the latter part of 1851 and the beginning of 1852 he devoted much time and thought to the subject. He collected facts relating to the trade with India and Australia which demonstrated the advantages to be gained by a rapid and direct communication for the conveyance of passengers and troops, as well as of merchandise. It was with these enlarged views that Mr. Brunel entered upon the construction of the ‘Great Eastern.’ He writes in February 1854, ‘In February and March 1852 I matured my ideas of the large ship with nearly all my present details, and in March I made my first sketch of one with paddles and screw. The size I then proposed was 600 × 70, and in June and July I determined on the mode of construction now adopted of cellular bottom; intending then to make the outer skin of wood for the sake of coppering.’

In the spring of 1852 he communicated the results at which he had arrived to Mr. John Scott Russell, Captain Claxton, and other scientific friends, and also to several Directors of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company.

This Company had been formed in January 1851 for the purpose of establishing an additional line of steam communication by the overland route, for the conveyance of mails, passengers, &c., between England, India, and China, with a branch to Australia. However, in March 1852 the Government determined to grant the contract for the whole service to the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The Directors of the Eastern Steam Company were therefore obliged to report to their shareholders that the object for which the Company had been incorporated could not be carried out.

At about this time Mr. Brunel’s scheme was brought before the Directors, and he submitted to them a detailed statement of his project.

After describing the size and capacities of the vessels then used on the route between England and the East, and the amount and cost of the coals they consumed, he continued:--

June 10, 1852.

The same amount of capital and the same expenditure in money for
fuel now required for a line of ships of the present dimensions
would build and work ships to carry in the year double the number
of passengers, with far superior accommodation, and in about half
the time, and two or three times the amount of cargo; the whole
difference being produced simply by making the vessel _large enough
to carry its own coal_, exactly as when the ‘Great Western’ was
projected for the New York line, the passage had been considered an
impossible one for steamboats, or, if possible, only at a total
sacrifice of all return for the cost. Certainly, no steamboat then
built could get across except by a chance fair weather passage, and
then only by being completely filled with coals and leaving no room
for passengers or cargo. Simply by building a ship of the size
necessary to take the coal, over and above the accommodation
required for a due number of passengers and a reasonable quantity
of cargo, the passage was rendered perfectly easy and certain, and
has since become a mere matter of course, and an ordinary and
profitable trading voyage.

The increased size, instead of being a disadvantage, was found, as
predicted by the projectors, to be a great benefit, and gave
increased speed, even beyond that proportionate to the power; and
this steamboat, built in 1836, is still as good as any of her size
afloat.

Nothing more novel is proposed now, but again to build a vessel _of
the size required to carry her own coals for the voyage_. The use
of iron, which has since 1836 become common, removes all difficulty
in the construction, and the experience of several years has
proved, what was believed before by most unprejudiced persons, that
size in a ship is an element of speed, and of strength, and of
safety, and of great relative economy, instead of a disadvantage;
and that it is limited only by the extent of demand for freight,
and by the circumstances of the ports to be frequented.

A Committee was appointed to confer with Mr. Brunel and with Mr. Scott Russell, ‘who was fully acquainted with all Mr. Brunel’s plans, and had ably assisted him in maturing them.’[141]

The Committee reported to the Directors that they had met on the day after their appointment, when, Mr. Brunel being unavoidably absent, Mr. Russell had attended and entered into a very full explanation of Mr. Brunel’s plans, and that a long investigation of his proposition had taken place; that a few days later they had met again, when Mr. Brunel attended, and that after a further and most satisfactory investigation, they had come to an unanimous decision in favour of the scheme. This resolution was adopted, and Mr. Brunel was appointed Engineer to the Company.

The following extracts from his reports and correspondence carry on the narrative till the date of the next meeting of the shareholders (December 1, 1852), when the details of the project were laid before them:--

_Extract from a Letter describing the Scheme._

July 1, 1852.

The principle is, as I explained to you, a very simple one--that of
building ships to carry their own coals, instead of incurring large
expenses and great delay in coaling at numerous intermediate
stations; and the result is a large vessel certainly, but one
which, at the same cost of fuel as is now required for small ones,
has, besides that room, for 4,000 or even 5,000 tons (measurement)
of cargo, and as many passengers as offer. Thus the capital
embarked in the one vessel is not so great in proportion to the
tonnage space for cargo as the capital embarked in several smaller
vessels carrying the same amount; while the current expenses are
greatly less, and the speed, and economy of time by that speed and
by avoiding tedious stoppages, greatly in favour of the large one.
Practical men concur with me, not merely in the practicability of
constructing the vessel, but in the great advantage as regards
speed, seaworthiness, and safety resulting merely from the
increased size; while all the mercantile men concur in the opinion
that if goods can be carried direct in thirty to thirty-five days,
the certainty of freight ensures a return far beyond all present
proportion of return to cost.... On these points, of course, I
quote only the opinions of the Directors. On the mechanical part I
offer my own opinion, and may quote those of the first practical
men of the day--Messrs. Maudslay, Messrs. Watt and Co., and J.
Scott Russell, all of whom have assisted me in the project, and are
prepared to join in it.

_Letter to J. Scott Russell, Esq., on the Form and Dimensions of the Great Ship._

July 13, 1852.

The adoption of this plan being now determined upon, we must
proceed to determine the details, and the first step unquestionably
is the determination of the size and form of the ship. Now, in
preparing the general design, I think the following conditions
should be strictly complied with. If any of them appear to involve
any great sacrifice in cost, or to involve any other peculiar
difficulties, these difficulties can be considered afterwards; but
the wisest and safest plan in striking out a new path is to go
straight in the direction which we believe to be right,
disregarding the small impediments which may appear to be in our
way--to design everything in the first instance for the best
possible results strictly according to the principles which theory,
so far as it is supported by practice, teaches us, and without
yielding in the least to any prejudices now existing unsupported by
theory and practice, or any fear of the consequences; we can then
afterwards weigh and balance deliberately the advantages of
adhering to or giving up this or that particular part, or modifying
dimensions, either from motives of economy, or as yielding to
public opinion from motives of policy.

In determining the lines of the ship, for instance, I should adopt
that which we have reason to believe the best possible without any
concession, or any compromise or regard to any assumed difficulties
of construction, or regard to assumed opinions; these difficulties
will very likely vanish afterwards if disregarded in the first
instance, as in the case of the continuous curve, in which my fresh
ideas had the advantage even of your much greater knowledge,
hampered by a little preconceived idea. With respect to the size,
to arrive at it by constructive calculations from the fixed
conditions that we can lay down is perhaps possible, but rather
difficult, and I think we know sufficiently nearly now what the
minimum size must be to work upon; that, and a trifling alteration
afterwards in the scale, will suffice to bring it to the exact
required capacity.

The positive conditions, then, are a maximum draught of water of 24
feet, when leaving the Hooghly with the coals for the voyage home;
and the capacity must be at least 21,000 tons of displacement at
this draught of 24 feet.

I think you will find that to effect this comfortably you must give
a length of 650 feet at least, and an extreme breadth of 80 feet,
but this beam of 80 feet requiring no fuller entrance than you
would make with a beam of 70 feet, the 80 feet being obtained
entirely by continuing a gentle curvature throughout the whole
length, instead of having any parallel lines.

If the experiments upon the friction of surfaces turn out as I
hope, and give us reason to expect a very much less resistance from
a copper surface than that now created by painted iron, I suspect
we may be led rather to increase our length and diminish the
proportion of beam; but this is a very serious question, not
entirely dependent on the consideration of the form of least
resistance including friction, but also materially affected by the
consideration of the advantages of the extreme steadiness of motion
which length seems to give. It is a subject which must be well
discussed and well considered, with the assistance of all those
whose opinions and experience are likely to be of use to us. My own
impressions, I confess, derived from considering the cases which we
have, even after the striking result of the ‘Ocean Queen,’ are that
positive length, independently of relative length, has much to do
with it. When I see that the ‘Great Britain,’ although with a beam
of about one-sixth of her length at the water line, and a midship
section favourable to rolling, is nevertheless steady, I must
conclude that positive length may compensate very greatly for a
relatively wide beam. Now, we shall unquestionably have abundance
of positive length. We must then be careful not to sacrifice much
to keep a small beam, without being very sure that there are very
great advantages; and, except for the assumed advantages of the
long parallel or equal bearings, the form of least resistance,
including friction, with a draught limited to 24 feet, and a
required displacement of 21,000 tons, would, I apprehend, give us a
beam nearer 90 feet than 70 feet. I should like to know exactly
what the proportion would be without regard to the theory of the
long narrow parallel forms; and then let us consider how much, if
anything, should be sacrificed to attain the advantage assumed to
be attained by relative length.

Let us therefore have at once the draft of a vessel of 21,000 tons
displacement at the 24 feet water line, and of such form as will in
your opinion give the greatest speed in smooth water, without
seeking to make it narrow.

We must, of course, also bear in mind the comparative weakness of
form caused by length, and the consequent increased thickness of
material required, besides an actual increase of surface, involving
a very considerably greater quantity and weight of material in the
ship, which last consideration is very greatly in favour of breadth
of beam; for I think you will find that the quantity of iron in
two ships of 600 and 700 feet in length respectively, with the same
displacement and the same ultimate strength to resist strains, will
be fully in the ratio of their length.

_Report to the Directors on Mode of Proceeding._

July 21, 1852.

Since the adoption by the general meeting of the plan recommended
by the Directors, I have been engaged very constantly in maturing
the details of that plan, and considering the course which it would
be necessary to follow in order to carry them out in the surest,
safest, and most efficient manner.

The steps which are about to be taken are unquestionably in the
right direction, but they are considerable ones, and must be taken
with deliberation and certainty, and without leaving anything
doubtful; and, when determined upon, they must be followed up with
decision.

Although you will probably determine upon constructing not less
than two vessels in the first instance, yet they must both be
proceeded with at once, and must in fact be exact duplicates of
each other. The success of the two, therefore, depends upon that of
each; there can be no average struck in such a case, but the two
ships must be designed and executed on such principles and with
such perfection that no doubt can exist of the result.

By well considering all that has been done, by selecting all that
has been most successful, and by a judicious application of such
results to the peculiar circumstances of our case, all this
certainly can, I think, be assured, but it can be assured only by
proceeding with the caution and the decision which the
circumstances demand.

In the first place, as to the designing of the whole, the principle
being determined upon, much may be ascertained by mere calculation,
but for these calculations data are required, which nothing but
experience can furnish. I have, therefore, availed myself of the
assistance of those most competent to afford the required
information. I have called in to my assistance the gentlemen whom I
had already named to you as best able to give strength to our
position by the value of their opinions, and best able to execute
the various parts of the work with that experience and perfection
which are essential to our success.

With respect to the form and construction of the vessel itself,
nobody can, in my opinion, bring more scientific and practical
knowledge to bear than Mr. Scott Russell. As to the proportion of
power to be adopted, the form and construction of the engines,
screw, and paddles, besides Mr. Scott Russell, I have had the
benefit of the deliberate consideration and advice of Mr. Field, of
the firm of Maudslay and Field, and of Mr. Blake, of the firm of
Watt and Co. I have written also to my friend Mr. F. P. Smith, to
whom the public are indebted for the success of the screw, for his
advice on the subject. With such assistance I think we may rely
upon the certainty of being able to design and to execute all that
is best in the mechanical and ship-building department. In the
naval department I have had the opportunity also of consulting two
gentlemen, Captain Claxton and Captain Robert Ford, who possess
special knowledge and experience on the subject. I have had several
conferences with all these gentlemen, I have explained fully my
views, and, with their assistance, settled preliminarily some of
the principal points of detail. What I should propose to the
Directors now is, that with that assistance I should proceed to
prepare in detail the design of the ship, and the exact dimensions
and form of the engines; that, in the meantime, I should obtain
information upon certain points which will govern you as to the
mode of contracting for the construction of the ships, and also
that I should be authorised to adopt some means of determining one
or two most important points which must govern some of the
principal dimensions.[142]

_Report to the Directors on Enquiries relating to the Draught and Form of the Vessel._

October 6, 1852.

Since the date of my last letter to you, recommending that certain
enquiries and investigations should be set on foot to determine
several points which would materially influence the plans I should
have to submit to you, many circumstances have occurred to delay
these investigations. Not having sent any competent person
expressly to Calcutta to ascertain with certainty the draught of
water that might be adopted, I have endeavoured to obtain as much
information as possible upon this point from persons capable of
affording it, who might be in England.

Several very competent men, captains of long experience in that
particular navigation, and even local pilots of the first standing,
happened to be within reach, and I have had personal communication
with these gentlemen. Notwithstanding, however, these fortunate
opportunities of obtaining information from the best existing
authorities, we are left in pretty nearly the same state of doubt
as to the maximum depth as we should be by a mere inspection of the
charts, the opinion of very competent men varying so much as to fix
this maximum as low as 21 and as high as 23½ and even 24 feet. They
all concur, however, in fixing Diamond Harbour as the point in the
Hooghly which may easily be reached, but beyond which it would be
almost impossible to go.

A question as to the extent of swell which in so large a ship might
be given to the sides, increasing the capacity without materially
increasing the resistance, involved one of the experiments to which
I referred in my former letter; these experiments have been made,
and the result, such as it was, of the enquiries before referred to
as to the navigation of the Hooghly, led me to direct the
preparation of draughts of three different models of ships, and
upon further consideration of these three, and under the
circumstances, I have come to the conclusion of recommending one
which will have the following dimensions:--namely, 670 feet in
length, 85 feet beam, and a deep water draught of 30 feet.

Such a vessel would be able to carry her own coal for the voyage
home out of the Hooghly with about 23 feet draught; but if between
now and the period when the exact arrangement must be determined,
it is found expedient not to attempt so great a draught in the
Hooghly, the same vessel will, by coaling at Trincomalee on the
return voyage, be exactly adapted to work out of the Hooghly with a
good cargo of goods and coals for Trincomalee with only 20 to 21
feet draught.

I have been in communication with the eminent engine builders whose
names I have mentioned on a former occasion, and with Mr. F. P.
Smith, the inventor of the screw propeller. Some trials and
investigations are still in progress to determine the relative
advantages of a copper and iron bottom, on which question may
depend the arrangements which may be requisite to provide for
docking or rather laying up for cleaning, and when these points are
determined I shall be prepared to lay before you a complete design
of ship and engines for your consideration.

Efforts were made to induce the public to assist in carrying out the project. In February 1853, the Chairman (the late Mr. Henry Thomas Hope) and several of his colleagues formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of communicating with Mr. Brunel on the subject of his plans, and reporting to the Board thereon.

The results of this conference were embodied in the following report which Mr. Brunel addressed to the Directors:--

_Report on the Proceedings of the Committee._

March 21, 1853.

To enable the Committee to arrive at a correct conclusion on this
difficult question, I had gone through rather lengthy calculations
of the minimum dimensions and the comparative estimated cost of the
ships which would in each case answer the purpose under the several
different circumstances which might be assumed; and the results of
these calculations were laid before the Committee, and the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each assumed case discussed....[143]

After much discussion, and comparing the probable receipts with the
estimated expenditure, and allowing fully for interest of capital
embarked, I think it appeared to the Committee that as a mere
mercantile transaction, and with reference only to the Australian
trade, the larger vessel would be the most economical, showing not
merely the means of securing the largest return, but involving an
actual diminution of annual expenditure....

The Committee were unanimously of opinion that the largest size of
the first class would be the best, and would in every way answer
the objects of the Company.

The dimensions arrived at by calculation for this ship would be in
round numbers, 670 feet long, 80 feet beam.

This sized vessel would combine most of the advantages which we
seek to obtain. It would carry coal to Diamond Harbour and back to
Trincomalee; it would afford room for about 800 separate cabins
larger than those now fitted up in packet ships, with large
saloons, capable of accommodating 1,000 or 1,500 first and
second-class passengers; and would carry 3,000 tons weight of
cargo, without making any allowance for that increase of speed
proportionate to the mere increase of size of which we see every
day fresh proofs; the average speed of the ship, with the proposed
power of engine and calculated consumption of coal, would be 14
knots at the average, making the passage out in 34½ days, say 36;
but with that increased speed which has been shown to take place
with increased dimensions, we may speculate upon the voyage being
performed in 30 days.

This same vessel, fitted up for the Australian voyage, and loaded
deeper, would carry coals to Australia and back, would take out
3,000 passengers easily, and a small amount of cargo only, but
could bring back any amount that could be conveniently collected,
or if provision were made for taking in 3,000 or 4,000 tons of coal
in Australia, that additional amount of cargo might be taken in the
passage out. The passage out to Port Philip should be made easily
in 36 days, and home by Cape Horn in the same time.

The Committee having come to the conclusion that this class of
vessel would best fulfil the several conditions which the
circumstances imposed, I have been engaged in determining the
several details consequent upon this selection of size, and have
put in hand drawings of the ship, which will enable me to arrive
more correctly at the cost, and will enable us to obtain tenders
for the construction. These details involve a great deal of study
and consideration, and the making of the drawings alone requires
some considerable time, so that I do not think much advance can be
made under three weeks from the present date, but I will endeavour
to expedite the work as much as possible.

Mr. Brunel was authorized to continue his communications with engine-makers and ship-builders, and to invite tenders.

After very detailed and careful calculations of the smallest capacity that would secure the attainment of the objects sought for, the dimensions of the vessel and the power of the engines were finally determined; tenders were received from Mr. Scott Russell, Messrs. Watt and Co., and Messrs. Humphrys and Co. for both sets of engines, and from Mr. Russell for the construction of the hull of the ship and for placing her afloat.

A meeting of the Directors was held on May 18, when Mr. Brunel submitted the various tenders he had received. The Board agreed to adopt his recommendations, and to accept the tenders of Mr. Scott Russell for the ship and paddle engines, and that of Messrs. James Watt and Co. for the screw engines.

The following report, which Mr. Brunel placed before the Directors, gives a detailed account of the steps he had taken to procure the tenders, and the grounds on which he had formed his judgment of them:--

_Report on Tenders._[144]

May 18, 1853.

According to your instructions, I applied to the several parties
with whom I had previously been in communication on the subject of
the engines and ship, for tenders for their supply. As regards the
engines, I drew up a short specification, defining generally what
was required, and leaving the parties to make their own designs and
propose to me the form of engine they would adopt.

With respect to the ship, where no such variation could be
permitted, I have had very detailed drawings and specifications
prepared.

Copies of the specifications are annexed.

In defining the power of the engines and boilers, I have, in
conformity with my own views and of those of several of the
Directors, who have expressed themselves strongly on the subject,
required a very full amount of power, without naming the nominal
horse-power, which is a very vague mode of defining anything but
the cost which by custom is made dependent upon that nominal power;
but I have defined dimensions of parts and surface of boilers which
will ensure the means of exerting a very large amount of power.

As regards the ship, I have not spared strength of materials, and
have required the best workmanship.

The result of this application for designs and tenders is, upon the
whole, very satisfactory, although two of the parties from whom I
had hoped to have received proposals have not been able to send
any....

Mr. Blake, of the firm of Watt and Co., and Mr. J. S. Russell and
Mr. Humphrys, have, as I had before reported, devoted much
attention to the subject: from these gentlemen I have received
distinct well-considered designs of the screw and paddle-engines.

I have been in frequent communication with these gentlemen, and
have seen their plans while in progress, and have made my
suggestions upon them, and assisted more or less in maturing them,
and at all events in preventing the adoption of any principle or
arrangement that I should afterwards object to. Notwithstanding
this, the three designs, particularly for the screw engines, are
totally dissimilar, and I am placed in the difficulty of having to
choose between three totally different plans, each designed by
skilful and experienced men, and each possessing many known and
acknowledged advantages.

I should also observe that, although I have known the general
arrangement which each would adopt, I did not receive the plans or
the tenders which I now forward until last evening, and that of Mr.
Humphrys as late as 10 o’clock this morning, and that I have not
therefore had time to draw up any very detailed report upon them.

The following are, however, the principal considerations which
influence me in the selection which I am disposed to recommend.

It must be borne in mind that the screw engines will be the largest
engines that have yet been made. The principal part of the
propelling power of the ship will be thrown upon the screw; and
upon these engines therefore will mainly depend the performance of
the ship, and particularly upon their constant never-failing
working, probably for thirty or forty days and nights, must depend
the certainty of the ship’s performance.[145] Under all these
circumstances, the compactness and stiffness of framing, the
greatest possible simplicity of construction, and the fewest
possible number of parts, and, finally, the absence of any novelty,
however promising, that can introduce any unforeseen difficulties,
are conditions which would outweigh in my mind many advantages that
might, and I think would, be attained by several arrangements which
have been suggested.

All the designs now submitted comply with these conditions to a
very considerable extent ... but the extreme simplicity of Mr.
Blake’s engine leads me to prefer it.

As regards the paddle engine, I unhesitatingly give the preference
to that proposed by Mr. Russell. I believe it to be as simple an
arrangement as can be adopted for engines with such a slow motion
and so long a stroke as these must have, and the single crank in
the centre I consider a great advantage....

As regards a contract for the ship, I have found it more difficult
to proceed in the ordinary course. The conditions which we must
ensure of quality of workmanship and execution, under close
inspection and within reach of one’s own supervision, are not
easily attained; and, though as a matter of course readily promised
and undertaken by all ship-builders, they are rarely secured. It is
essential also that the ship should be built where the engines can
be readily fixed on board before launching, and in a yard which can
be devoted to the purposes of the ship, and whence the launching
can be effected with the engines and boilers on board.

All these are conditions not easily secured. I have been in
communication with one or two parties, and the result is a tender
from Mr. J. Scott Russell, which I enclose, and which has in fact
been framed upon my calculations. Owing to the recent rise in iron
it is somewhat, but not materially, above the amount at which I had
originally estimated the vessels; but the tender, founded upon the
supposition of two such vessels being ultimately ordered, is as
nearly as may be the same as my original estimate, and upon the
whole I consider the tenders both for engines and ships very
satisfactory and confirming fully our previous calculations.

These tenders do not include, in the case of the engines, either
the screw itself or the paddle wheels, nor, in the case of the
vessel, the cabin fittings, masts, and rigging, boats, or stores. I
should estimate these roughly at 50,000_l._ more,--at least such an
allowance ought to be ample; but these details will require a great
deal of consideration, and could not be included in the original
contracts; while at the same time they can mostly be better and
more economically supplied by competition or by arrangement with
the special makers of the respective articles....

During the next six months Mr. Brunel was engaged in preparing the formal contracts and specifications. These documents were settled with much care, and after frequent communications with the contractors, who consented to the insertion of clauses which gave the full control and supervision over every part of the work to the Engineer, with very large powers of interpretation. They required, however, that, should Mr. Brunel cease to act as Engineer, any disputed point should be settled by arbitration, and not by his successor.

Besides the delay occasioned by the magnitude and novelty of the undertaking, there were other difficulties which helped to postpone the commencement of the works. The Directors were unable, under their charter, to enter into any contracts until a certain amount of their capital was actually paid up; and, as several shareholders had retired when the change of plans was determined upon, it was no easy work to get the shares taken. That this was eventually accomplished was due mainly to the exertions of Mr. Brunel and Mr. Charles Geach, one of the Directors.[146] ‘Could I have foreseen,’ Mr. Brunel writes, ‘the work I have had to go through, I would never have entered upon it; but I never flinch when I have once begun, and do it we will.’

Several times they nearly broke down, but at length the contracts were signed, and on the same day, December 22, Mr. Brunel gave the formal notice to the contractors to proceed with the works. ‘After two years’ exertions (he wrote), ‘we are set going, the contracts entered into, and the work commenced.’

_Extracts from Mr. Brunel’s Memoranda_, A.D. 1852-1853.

_July 11, 1852._--The dimensions I commenced with in March last, of
650 × 70 × 30 appear after all to be not far wrong, according to
present views. I make them now 700 × 70 × 24 about; but much
depends upon the last dimension, the draught. If another foot or
two can be safely taken it will be of great advantage.... With this
size of vessel, having a midship section of about 1,800, and a
length of 700, I assume a nominal horse-power of about 2,500. The
first question of importance is, in what proportion shall this be
divided between the screw and paddles?... My present impression is
to halve the power between the two.

In both the engines every known means must be adopted to secure
efficiency:--1, An excess of boiler power; 2, expansion
permanently, say at ⅓; 3, steam of not less pressure than 20
lbs., and I should prefer 25 lbs.; 4, that cylinders, particularly
top and bottom, slide chest, and steam pipes, be all jacketed, and
the jacket supplied with steam from an auxiliary boiler of at least
10 lbs. more pressure than that of main boilers; and it would be
very desirable to make some experiments to determine whether it is
not worth having a heating apparatus to heat the steam immediately
before it enters the cylinders.[147]

_July 17._--After a long conference with Mr. Field, I continue of
the opinion that it would be well to apply about three-fifths of
the power to the screw and two-fifths to the paddles, and probably,
as the vessel gets light, diminishing a little the expenditure of
power on the paddles, and keeping up the full power on the screw.
Mr. Field is not in favour of increasing the pressure of steam
beyond 12 lbs. or 15 lbs., on the ground that all the mechanical
difficulties increase rapidly without a corresponding advantage,
particularly where size and weight are not so important. There
seems much truth in this.... The possible advantages of a slight
increase are not sufficient to justify the risk of the possible new
difficulties in a work on so large a scale. Nothing uncertain must
be risked. These arguments do not apply to the jacketing and
heating, which Mr. Field also deprecated, or rather discouraged,
simply on the ground of the trouble and difficulty of effecting it,
but he admitted that all experience went to show the advantages of
it; and as to the difficulties, which I could not see, they involve
no other risk than that of being useless: they cannot do mischief.
The heating of the top and bottom of the cylinders, I think, must
be particularly important in a short-stroked engine working
expansively. In a cylinder of 80 inches diameter and 40 inches
stroke, having regard to the _time_ of contact, the area of the
bottom will be nearly equal in effect to the surface of the
cylinder.

_July 19._--After much consideration, I think I feel satisfied that
the best construction will be to have strong bulkheads every 30
feet or thereabouts, this distance being dependent on what is
required for one set of boilers and its stock of coals; these
bulkheads being carried right up wherever practicable--I think
every alternate one may be--and then place the main ribs of the
ship, and even at least two main deck beams, _longitudinal_ instead
of _transverse_.

_February 2, 1853._--Several drafts of ships have been made and
much consideration given to the subject, and frequent discussions
with various parties. The result of all is that my present views
are as follows:--

The ship, all iron, double bottom, and sides up to water line, with
ribs longitudinal like the Britannia tube. I have not been able to
devise any good mode of determining the relative amount of friction
of a copper and an iron surface; and, although I believe in copper,
it would not do to act on mere belief. I therefore at present
settle iron, the surface being carefully made smooth. Doubts have
come across me also as to whether with a very long surface the
difference between the smoothness will so much affect the total
resistance. Is not a film of water, after a certain distance,
carried with the body? and, if so, its greater or less roughness,
if not producing currents, is almost unimportant. Would there be
any difference in the resistance of a fine file or a rough one
drawn through tallow, if they both covered themselves with grease?
Is there any similarity? As to size, if we are to go round the
world,[148] I do not think we can do with less than--length, 730;
beam, 85; draught deep, 34; and I assume a nominal horse-power of
engines equal to 1¼ of the sectional area at 30 feet; but, taking
consumption as a better measure, and assuming that every possible
economy is practised, and every refinement introduced that can
produce economy, I shall assume 7½ lbs. per hour per nominal
horse-power, or say 0·08 ton per day per horse-power; and as I
assume the horse-power to be 1¼ sectional area, it makes the
consumption =0·1 ton per day per foot of sectional area. And this
is a very large allowance and ought to ensure a very high speed. In
order to effect the utmost economy, I should work up to 20 lbs.
steam (calling it 16 lbs.), cutting off certainly at ⅓ the
stroke, and adopting every precaution to keep the steam hot and the
condenser cool. The latter depends, I believe, solely upon the
perfect dispersion of the injection water, so that the condensation
of the steam may take place suddenly, otherwise the same amount of
water may condense the steam _in time_, the same amount of heat be
given off, the same quantity of injection water used, and yet the
condenser be always full of steam at a good pressure. It might be
well worth the experiment to try the effect of a large injection at
the moment of the exhaust port being opened; but above all things I
believe the heating of the steam to be important; and for this
purpose I should jacket the steam pipes and cylinders top and
bottom, and heat with high pressure steam, say at 60 lbs.--I have
increased this pressure the more I think of it; 60 lbs. would be
above 300 degrees, and 20 lbs. not quite 260 degrees; therefore
there would be a full 40 degrees of surplus to ensure the
temperature. I have a great tendency to believe in the advantage of
further heating even, which might be done by a Perkins’ arrangement
of hot water; but possibly the new conditions, as regards oiling,
&c., might involve difficulties not desirable to introduce in this
case. In the boilers it will also be necessary to adopt every
refinement which has been found really to answer, although not
always adopted; above all, every means of keeping them clean--scum
pans, and Field’s exchanging apparatus. But what would be even more
effectual would be some easy means of removing a whole bundle of
tubes and replacing them by clean ones; and surely this would not
be difficult, the tubes being large and with plenty of space, so
that a man could pass his arm between. A rather important addition
to boilers would also be a means of blowing off without noise.
Several modes would seem to be possible, but whatever plan is
adopted, it should be one which is completely self-acting, and
perfectly effectual when used suddenly and without any preparation,
and at a moment of confusion and alarm. Blowing through a wire
gauze pipe would probably be as likely a way as any.[149]

The more consideration I give to the subject the more disposed I am
to adopt oscillating engines for both screw and paddles. The
extreme simplicity and small number of parts, and compactness, and
the direct action of every resistance to the force which it is
wanted to resist, seem to leave nothing to be desired, and would
seem to make it a better and more mechanical arrangement of a
cylinder and crank than any other, quite independently of the
object for which it was originally designed, which was simply
‘stumpiness.’

_February 21._--The original line (to Calcutta) seems likely, after
all, as usual with most original ideas, to be the best; at all
events, so good that the vessel must be built to be able to go
there. The dimensions best fitted for this would seem to
be--length, 700 feet; beam, 85 feet; depth of hold, 58 feet; screw,
24 feet; paddle 60 feet. If arranged for Calcutta, we must arrive
there on an even keel, and therefore, to maintain the most equal
level for the paddles, they must be kept well forward, and the
change principally at the stern. Engines indicated horse-power
8,000; steam at 25 lbs.; auxiliary steam at 60 lbs.

The ship to be lighted with gas, to be thoroughly ventilated by
mechanical means, having large air trunks, with small pipes and
valves to each cabin, with the means of warming this air in cold
latitudes and seasons, and cooling it in the more frequent cases of
hot climates. The ship must be steered from the forecastle, whence
a perfect look-out must be kept with fixed telescope, &c., and
speaking pipes and bells to the engine rooms.

_March_ 14.--At a meeting of the Committee, held this evening here,
the several costs and qualities of four different sizes of ships,
of which all the calculations had been made by me, namely:--

No. Length Breadth Mid. Sec. Draught
1 663 79·9 1,646 24
2 634 76·39 1,640 25
3 609 73·5 1,639 26
4 730 87 2,090 28

were discussed, and the No. 1 determined upon as the best under all
the circumstances. I should propose, therefore, to make the
dimensions of No. 1:--length, 680 feet; beam, 81 feet, to be
swelled to 83 feet; extreme draught, 30 feet; mean, 24 feet; daily
consumption, say 200 tons.

This ship can carry her coal to Calcutta, and arrive and leave with
only 21 feet 6 inches draught, having 9 days’ coal and 3,000 tons
cargo; or she could first go to Australia and back, without or with
very little cargo out, and consequently would take out as much
cargo as you might choose to send coal for her to Australia....

These dimensions are worked out in the design No. 5 (April 9,
1853), but they would be better for a slight increase, if the 83
feet were made 85 feet, and the 680 feet were made 700. We should
have an increase in capacity of 83 × 680=56,440 to 85 × 700=59,500,
or 6 per cent. of displacement. This would bring the displacement
at 32 feet draught up to 31,250 tons.

_March_ 22.--Settled the various dimensions of scantlings with S.
Russell to enable him to direct drawings of all details to be got
out.

_April_ 28.--We are now seeking tenders for engines and ship of
the following dimensions:--Length, 680 feet; beam, 83 feet; mean
draught, about 25 feet; screw engine, indicated horse-power 4,000;
nominal horse-power, 1,600; paddle, indicated horse-power, 2,600;
nominal horse-power, 1,000; to work with steam 15 lbs. to 25 lbs.;
speed of screw, 45 to 55 revolutions; paddle, 10 to 12.

Among the details of improvements still to be considered are the
receiving through measures the coal from the bunkers, and running
it on tramways and waggons to the front of the fires, thus at the
same time measuring out accurately the hourly consumption, and
saving labour; but a still more important object, the use of clean
water--that is, using the same water over again--is well worth
considering; and it is well worth the experiment, whether cooling
down the water of condensation to use again is not in fact the
easiest way. With an unlimited supply of cooling water this ought
to be easy.

_August 7._--Memoranda for engines.--Very sensitive governors to be
applied to both engines to prevent running away.

_November 18._--It is curious that the above should be the last
memorandum, as I now open the book to make the same in consequence
of the accident to the ‘Agamemnon.’[150]

There can be no reason why a sensitive governor should not act in
less than one revolution of the crank, and act upon a tumbler which
should shut off instantly the expansion valve. There should be two
such governors, one to each end of the crank shaft, and they should
work direct from a spur wheel from the shaft without any
intermediate shafting, to give elasticity, or to risk breaking.
(Query, hydraulic governors?)

The auxiliary engine and boiler to be at least 20 feet from bottom,
and, better still, above load water line, or so boxed as to be out
of reach of water; so that if the ship grounded and filled, this
engine would remain serviceable for pumping or anything else.

The history of the ‘Great Eastern’ has now been traced up to the date of the contracts for the construction of the ship and her engines.

The following selections from Mr. Brunel’s memoranda illustrate the progress of the design during the early months of the year 1854:--

_February 25, 1854._--The details of construction, both of engines
and ship, involve an immense amount of thought and labour. I have
devoted a great deal of time to it already, and yet even the
preliminary details either of engines or ship are far from being
satisfactorily settled. I have no record of the many consultations
hitherto held on the subject, but shall hope to keep one hereafter.
On the 6th inst., some of the drawings of the ship and of parts of
the engines, having been several times revised and altered, being
ready, I spent the greater part of the day at Millwall[151] in
going again into them, and settled some parts, such as the
dimensions, &c., of cranks, and bearings, general form of engine
frame, and some of the general principles of framing and plating of
the ship. Some other consultations have been held, and again to-day
(February 26) I have spent some hours at Millwall.... Discussed the
details of a midship section, the drawings of which were in a
forward state; directed that the cabins should positively be made 6
feet 6 inches each in the clear, and the bulkheads made subordinate
to this; found that it could be done without difficulty, and
without causing any mechanical objections in construction. I am
anxious to have some approximate estimates of weights.

It is evident that large weights may most easily be wasted or saved
by a careless or close consideration of the best application of
iron in every single detail. I found, for instance, an unnecessary
introduction of a filling piece or strip, such as is frequently
used in ship-building to avoid bending to angle irons; made a
slight alteration in the disposition of the plates that rendered
this unnecessary; found that we thus saved 40 tons weight of iron,
or say 1,200_l._ of money in first cost, and 40 tons of cargo
freight--at least 3,000_l._ a year. The principle of construction
of the ship is in fact entirely new, if merely from the rule which
I have laid down, and shall rigidly preserve, that no materials
shall be employed on any part except at the place, and in the
direction, and in the proportion, in which it is required, and can
be usefully employed for the strength of the ship, and none merely
for the purpose of facilitating the framing and first construction.

In the present construction of iron ships the plates are not
proportioned to the strength required at different parts, and
nearly 20 per cent, of the total weight is expended in angle irons
or frames, which may be useful or convenient in the mere putting
together of the whole as a great box, but is almost useless, or
very much misapplied, in affecting the strength of the structure as
a ship.

All this misconstruction I forbid, and the consequence is that
every part has to be considered and designed as if an iron ship had
never before been built; indeed I believe we should get on much
quicker if we had no previous habits and prejudices on the subject.

_March 3._--Mr. Blake [_of the firm of Messrs. James Watt and
Co._], called, and went fully into the general drawings which he
brought. On the necessity of large surfaces he quite concurred with
me. The extent to which such a general principle should be carried
is of course very difficult to determine; my idea is that it has
never yet been approached....

_March 10._--Engaged all the afternoon at Millwall.... Settled and
signed the drawings of crank and piston rods. Went into many
details of ship....

The extracts from Mr. Brunel’s correspondence which follow, have been selected as containing a definition in his own words of the position he held as Engineer to the Company by which the great ship was built.

_Letter to the Secretary of the Eastern Steam Navigation Company._

[This letter was written in consequence of a resolution of the
Directors, asking Mr. Brunel to recommend them a resident engineer,
in order that constant supervision might be exercised over the
works, and frequent reports made to the Board.

The Directors rescinded their resolution; but this letter is
inserted as showing, in clear and forcible language, Mr. Brunel’s
view of the nature of his duties and responsibilities, and as
laying down what in his opinion ought to be the relations between
the Directors of a Company and their Engineer.]

August 16, 1854.