ROBERT FULTON.
ROBERT FULTON.
The work begun by Bushnell in 1775 was taken up ten years later by Robert Fulton whose diving-boats so nearly fulfilled the conditions necessary for practicalsubmarine navigation. As America was at peace at this time, and as her financial condition was at the lowest ebb, Fulton transferred his skill and energy to Europe which was then involved in the Napoleonic wars. Several attempts were made to interest the French government in his invention, but although certain commissions reported favorably on his ideas, nothing came of them for a time. In 1800, however, Fulton succeeded in interesting Napoleon in his scheme, and the following year he was given the opportunity of building his first submarine boat, theNautilus. This boat was cigar shaped, about twenty-one feet long and seven feet in diameter, and made of copper supported by iron ribs. When operating at the surface this boat used a peculiarly shaped sail; but when submerged it was propelled by a screw actuated by machinery turned by hand. In this boat, Fulton, with three companions, descended to a depth of twenty-three feet and remained submerged for twenty minutes; and at a depth of five or six feet they are said to have remained submerged for six hours, air being supplied by a copper vessel, probably containing oxygen or compressed air.
The first experiment made in attempting actually to destroy a vessel with theNautilus, was successful, a small vessel being sunk. Encouraged by this success Fulton proposed to build larger boats of this same type capable of destroying the largest battle-ships. In return he asked that a reward be paid him for each vessel destroyed, the price of his diving boat reimbursed, and a patent be given himself and the members of his crew, so that in case of capture they wouldbe treated as prisoners of war and not hanged as pirates. Strangely enough this latter clause was the greatest stumbling-block, as the proposed methods of destroying battle-ships by torpedoes was held in such disrepute that the French government would not grant a patent rating the crew of torpedo boats or submarine boats as legitimate belligerents. In effect, their attitude was, that while a person was at liberty to destroy an empire from the surface of the water, he would be hanged as a criminal if he dived beneath the surface and destroyed a boat.
Discouraged by this stand of the French government, Fulton removed to England, where he succeeded in interesting the prime-minister, William Pitt, in his novel boat. A commission was appointed consisting of a number of prominent men, including Mr. Pitt, and Fulton was requested to demonstrate what could be done in actual practice by his submarine. On October 15, 1805, an old brig detailed for the purpose was destroyed by Fulton by the explosion of a torpedo containing one hundred and seventy pounds of powder. Yet in the face of this remarkable demonstration the commission remained unfavorable to Fulton's scheme, although Mr. Pitt to the last retained his faith in the possibilities of such boats.
Recognizing that further attempts in England would be fruitless, Fulton returned to the United States. Here, in 1810, Congress became sufficiently interested to appropriate five thousand dollars to assist him in his work, and as a final test of the boat he had built, the naval authorities prepared the brigArgusto resistan attack by the submarine. This preparation consisted in surrounding her with protecting booms of logs, supporting strong netting, and held a distance from the hull by spars. In fact all possible means short of actually building a wall about theArguswere taken to defeat the attack. It is probable that the brig, when her preparations for defense were completed, would have been invulnerable even to a modern torpedo, and it is not surprising, therefore, that Fulton's attack upon her utterly failed.
Commenting upon this failure and the means taken by the authorities to protect theArgus, Fulton significantly remarked that the very fact that a war vessel was obliged to make use of such means to protect herself against a system of attack then in its infancy, spoke volumes for the possibilities of this method of attacking when it should be more fully developed.
But although this failure to destroy theArguscaused Congress to withdraw its aid for future experiments in submarine warfare, Fulton himself never lost faith in the importance of his work. Even after his successful invention of the steamboat, for surface navigation, he is said to have remarked that, while this invention was important, it could in no wise compare with the revolutionary effects upon navigation that would eventually be produced by submarine boats. And despite his failure to convince the government of the possibilities of his diving boats, he continued his experiments with them. How nearly he succeeded in making a practical submarine was shown in the second war with England that followed soon after.
In this war a "diving boat," supposed to have been one of Fulton's submarines, made several attacks upon the British man-of-warRamilliesoff New London, in the summer of 1813. In the first two attempts the approach of the submarine was detected by the crew of the man-of-war, who cut their cables, and stood out of the harbor as quickly as possible. In the third attempt, the diving boat succeeded in coming up in a position directly under theRamillies, fastened itself to the keel and made a hole in the planking large enough to receive the screw which was to fasten the torpedo in place. In the act of fastening it, however, this screw was broken off, and the attempt had to be abandoned for the moment.
This attack created such a panic aboard the British boat, that she did not return to the inner harbor but kept constantly in motion outside. Not satisfied with this protection against such "dishonorable attempts," the British commander took on board his vessel a hundred prisoners, apprising the Americans of the fact, and assuring them that a similar action would be taken by all the ships of the British fleet, so that in case a vessel was torpedoed the American prisoners would be blown up with her crew. This effectually frustrated Fulton's plans; for when the fact became known in the United States, the Americans were naturally as vigorous as the British in protesting against Fulton and his boats.
Obviously the rule that "everything is fair in war" was not accepted in practice a hundred years ago. Fulton's attempts were regarded as the acts of a pirate,those of the British commander as perfectly legitimate and honorable methods.
From the time of Fulton to the outbreak of the American Civil War there were few attempts at submarine navigation. On the opening of this war, however, efforts were made to perfect diving boats; and these efforts were so well directed that eventually one of these boats succeeded in destroying the Federal boatHousatonicin Charleston Harbor on the night of February 17, 1864.
The submarine that accomplished this was one of the most remarkable boats ever constructed. It was cigar shaped, about sixty feet long, and carried a crew of nine men. It was submerged partly by means of ballast tanks and partly by lateral fins. As a weapon it carried a spar torpedo fastened to its blunt nose. It was propelled by hand-power, eight of the nine members of the crew working on a crank which actuated the propeller. The ninth man, crouching in the bow, steered the boat. No reserve air was carried, and consequently the length of time the boat could remain submerged was limited to a very few minutes. On account of this, and because of its unfortunate career, it was aptly called the "peripatetic coffin"; and it justified this name by sinking five different times, drowning thirty-five out of forty of the members of its different crews. Nevertheless it succeeded in destroying an American war vessel, thus demonstrating that this feat is possible under condition of actual warfare.
The submarines of the Civil War came to be known by the general name of "Davids," and several of them of different types were built. The only successful attack of any of these Davids, however, was the one which destroyed theHousatonic. In his book,The Naval History of the Civil War, Admiral Porter described this attack upon theHousatonicasfollows:—
"At about 8.45P.M.the officer of the deck on board the unfortunate vessel discovered something about one hundred yards away, moving along the water. It came directly toward the ship, and within two minutes of the time it was first sighted was alongside. The cable was slipped, the engines backed, and all hands called to quarters. But it was too late—the torpedo struck theHousatonicjust forward of the mainmast, on the starboard side, in a line with the magazine. The man who steered her knew where the vulnerable spots of the steamer were, and he did his work well. When the explosion took place the ship trembled all over as if by the shock of an earthquake, and seemed to be lifted out of the water, and then sunk foremost, heeling to port as she went down.
"Her captain, Pickering, was stunned and somewhat bruised by the concussion, and the order of the day was 'Sauve qui peut.' A boat was despatched to theCanandaigua, not far off, and that vessel at once responded to the request for help, and succeeded in rescuing the greater part of the crew.
"Strange to say the David was not seen after the explosion, and was supposed to have slipped away in the confusion; but when theHousatonicwas inspectedby divers, the torpedo-boat was found sticking in the hole she had made, and all her crew were dead in her. It was a reckless adventure these men had engaged in, and one in which they could scarcely have hoped to succeed. They had tried it once before inside the harbor, and some of the crew had been blown overboard. How could they hope to succeed on the outside, where the sea might be rough, when the speed of the David was not over five knots, and when they might be driven out to sea! Reckless as it might be, it was the most sublime patriotism, and showed the length to which men could be urged on behalf of a cause for which they were willing to give up their lives and all they held most dear."
After the Civil War several nations interested themselves in the subject of submarines, and during the Franco-Prussian war in 1870–71, France attempted the construction of such vessels, but without success. Yet the possibility of producing these boats was becoming more apparent every year by the improvements in electrical motors, gasoline engines, compressed-air motors, and the automobile- or fish-torpedo—itself a miniature submarine boat.
In America the progress made in submarine-boat construction has been fully as great, if not greater, than in any other country. Undoubtedly the foremost figure in this progress has been Mr. P. Holland; and his efforts and successes are largely responsible for thepresent fleet of submarine boats built already, or in the process of construction, as well as for those of several foreign countries. Indeed, in the matter of submarine inventions, only one country can be considered as rivaling America, that nation being France, whose enthusiasm for submarine navigation has been much greater than that of any other nation, although in the matter of results she has not outstripped the United States.
Mr. Holland's first submarine boat was built in 1875. It was called a "diving canoe," being only sixteen feet in length and wide enough to hold one man clothed in a diving-suit. Four years later, however, Holland built a larger boat called theHolland No. 3constructed along similar lines to the most recent submarines. This was the first buoyant submarine to be steered up and down by horizontal rudders alone, and may be said to mark an epoch in submarine navigation. But the No. 3 had many defects, and Mr. Holland continued to build and improve new boats, until finally his ninth boat, which is the one familiarly known as theHolland, represented a practical form of submarine vessel. This boat was 53 feet 10 inches long, 10 feet 3 inches in diameter, had a displacement of 75 tons, and carried 10 tons of water ballast. The gasoline engine which it used when running at the surface propelled the boat at the rate of seven knots an hour, and it could travel a distance of fifteen hundred miles at this rate of speed with the amount of fuel carried. When submerged it could run a distance of about fifty knots without coming to the surface.
In diving, the Holland type of boat takes in sufficient water ballast to lower it to the surface of the water. The horizontal rudders are then brought into use causing it to descend to the desired depth, and keeping it at an approximately uniform distance from the surface while running submerged. By this arrangement the boat can dive very quickly, requiring only a matter of eight or ten seconds for reaching a depth of thirty feet. Record plunges have been made in less time than this.
The armament of the Holland boat was originally designed to consist of three tubes, two of which were for throwing aërial torpedoes and shells, and the third for discharging Whitehead torpedoes. One of these aërial guns was placed in the bow, and one in the stem; but later the stern tube was abandoned. The bow gun was designed to discharge projectiles a distance of about one mile, such projectiles weighing something over two hundred pounds and carrying one hundred pounds of gun-cotton. The tube for discharging the Whitehead torpedo was practically the same as the submerged tubes in use at present on battle-ships.
Although thisHollandis now the type of diving boat most familiar to the majority of people, and the one in use in several navies, it should not be understood that the Holland boats were the only successful submarines constructed up to this time. France and Russia had produced successful diving boats; and in America those invented by Simon Lake, some of which are used for wrecking and salvage work as well as forwar purposes, have proved quite as practical as the Hollands. In recent tests of these two types by the United States Government the Holland boats showed themselves to be slightly superior to the Lake boats in certain particulars, but the margin of superiority was a very narrow one.
The boats of the "Octopus" type are strictly speaking "diving boats," while the Lake boats are of the "even-keel" type. These terms refer to the method of submergence, the diving boats changing their horizontal trim when submerging, while the even-keel boats retain their horizontal trim, or nearly so.
The Lake boats have some features not usually embodied in other submarines, since some of the boats are designed for purposes other than warfare. Thus, they are equipped with wheels, or buffers, on which they can roll along the bottom of the ocean or bay. In the bow is an air-tight compartment with an opening in the bottom through which a diver can emerge and work on wreckage, or laying and disconnecting mines. These boats have also a safety device in the form of a detachable keel weighing several tons. In case of accident, when it might otherwise be impossible to rise to the surface, this keel can be detached simply by pulling a lever, thus giving the boat sufficient buoyancy to rise to the surface. This particular feature of the detachable keel is not peculiar to the Lake boats alone, some of the foreign submarines using a similar arrangement as a safeguard.
THE AMERICAN SUB-MARINE BOAT "CUTTLEFISH" IN DRY DOCK AT THE BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
THE AMERICAN SUB-MARINE BOAT "CUTTLEFISH" IN DRY DOCK AT THE BROOKLYN NAVY YARD.
Technically speaking the name "submarine" is now used only as applying to those boats that are operatedsolely by electric power, have little buoyancy, and do very little running at the surface. The term "submersible" is applied to a submarine boat, actuated by electricity while submerged, but using gasoline motors for motive power while running at the surface. These gasoline engines are used at the same time for charging the storage batteries; so that the submersible is a much more practical boat than the submarine, and at the same time is quite as good a diver. Indeed, although many naval writers are very careful to make a distinction in the use of these terms, there seems little need of doing so, since only one type of boat—the submersible—is now considered practical. But as the word submarine is the older and more popular, it is used here to cover both classes except in specific cases.
For several years there were two classes of submarines under observation—those possessing no floatability when submerged, and those having some reserve buoyancy. The advantage claimed for the no-floatability class of boats is that, having no buoyancy, they are kept more easily at a certain depth below the surface of the water instead of tending to come to the surface constantly as in the case of boats of the other type.
But in actual practice the theoretical possibilities of such boats have not come up to the expectations of their advocates. For keeping the boat at a uniform depth, the most universally accepted method is by the use of horizontal rudders. The fact that the vertical direction of a boat may be controlled by horizontal rudders, when her buoyancy is small, has long sincebeen established in submarine navigation; and the simplicity of this method naturally helps its popularity. If there were no shifting of weight in a submarine, or no wave disturbance, it would not be difficult to set the rudders at such an angle that the boat would travel for long distances at an approximately uniform submergence, the depth of submergence being indicated by gauges acted upon by the water pressure on the surface of the boat. And in actual practice it is possible to do this at the present time, part of the problem having been solved by automatic and other devices.
It should be remembered that many things enter into the disturbance of the submarine's equilibrium. The movement of a member of the crew from one point to another shifts the ballast; a certain amount of leakage of water cannot be avoided, and the sudden discharge of a torpedo weighing several hundred pounds from her bow tends to bring the boat quickly to the surface if this lost weight is not compensated for quickly. By various ingenious devices all these difficulties have been practically overcome, most of them automatically.
But the great unsolved problem of submarine navigation—practically the only one that now opposes a question mark to its great utility in warfare—is that of steering with certainty of direction when submerged. Once the submarine is under water it is in utter darkness as far as seeing to steer is concerned; and what adds to the difficulty is the fact that the compass cannot be relied upon, because of the surrounding electrical apparatus. It would be possible, perhaps, to construct a powerful electric lamp to throw a lightsome distance ahead of the boat, but this would defeat the primary object of submarine attack, as such a light would be seen by an enemy.
In still water, when the boat is running within a distance of ten or fifteen feet of the surface, it is possible to steer with great precision by the use of an optical tube or "periscope." This periscope is a straight, hollow tube, connected with the steering compartment in the submarine, and protruding above the water. In the upper end are a mirror and lenses so arranged that the surrounding objects are reflected downward through the tube, and show on a screen, or some other device, so that the helmsman sees things of exactly the same size that they would appear to the naked eye. The periscope is also fitted with a telescope attachment which magnifies objects like the binoculars used in surface navigation. On some recent submarines there are two periscopes, a movable one for use of the commanding officer, and one that looks straight ahead for the helmsman's use.
In still water the periscope works admirably, but it is seriously interfered with even by small waves. It is so small and inconspicuous, however, that it might enable a submarine to creep within torpedo range even in daylight, and launch the torpedo with accuracy, as was proved in 1908 when a fleet of submarines actually accomplished this feat in an experimental test.
To most people, one of the most surprising things in the Russo-Japanese war was the fact that submarineboats played no part in it whatever. There is only one possible conclusion to be drawn from this: the day of the submarine as a determining factor in naval battles on the high seas had not arrived.
The reason for the surprise of the generality of people in finding the submarine was not as yet an entirely practical war engine, is due to the enthusiastic misrepresentations of the daily press and magazines, whose readers have been led to infer that the modern submarine boat is so far perfected that it can do things under water almost as well as boats on the surface. Nothing is farther from the truth. Under ideal (and consequently unusual) conditions, the submarines, and submersibles, have done, and can do, some remarkable things, such as staying submerged for hours, diving to a depth of two hundred feet, and running long distances. But these are only the first requisites of the under-water fighting boat—simply the "creeping stage" of development. The common impression that the submarine boat, such as the ones of the Holland and Lake types, can go cruising about, fish-like, for hours, watching for its prey in some mysterious manner without coming near the surface, is a dream not yet realized.
If one will pause to consider that light is necessary to sight and that one hundred feet of sea water makes almost as efficient an obstacle to vision as a stone wall, it will be easy to understand why the submarine is still struggling with difficulties that oppose its perfection. The fanciful illustration seen so often of a submarine diving hundreds of feet deep in the water, swimming about and finally coming up under the keel of a battleship and destroying it, are as yet the creations of vivid imaginations. For submarine marksmen, like all others, require a fairly clear view of the target—even such a huge target as a battle-ship—to direct their shots with any degree of certainty.
The greatest problem now confronting the submarine navigator, therefore, is that of seeing without being seen. At night, and at long ranges, this is not difficult, as the little conning-tower, or tiny periscope tube protruding above the waves, is not easily detected even by strong searchlights, sharp eyes, and marine glasses. But long ranges are of little use to the submarine; and there is always another difficulty—the leviathan battle-ship does not lie still waiting to be stabbed by its sword-fish enemy, but keeps moving about, twisting and turning, at a rate of from fourteen to eighteen knots an hour, while the submarine can only make about eleven knots when submerged. In a stern chase, therefore, the submarine is one of the most harmless of sea-monsters, in the open ocean. For harbor work, however, the case is different. In some recent tests the submarine boats made eighty per cent. in hits while attacking moving vessels in a harbor at night—a far higher percentage than is usually made by surface torpedo boats under the same circumstances.
At present the best solution of the problem of steering the partly submerged submarine is offered by the use of a conning-tower elevated five or six feet above the body of the submarine, which can be kept just above the waves, and present an inconspicuous target. The early Holland boats did not have this, althoughthe American Lake boats have had it from the first; but at the present time all boats are being so made. At first these towers were made circular in form; but it was found that towers of this shape made sufficient splash in passing through the water to attract attention at a considerable distance on a still night. This shape was abandoned, therefore, and a boat-shaped one adopted.
With such a noiseless conning-tower the submersible can cruise about on foggy nights, or when the waves are just high enough to make a disturbance on the surface, running with the top of the conning-tower open so as to secure good ventilation as long as possible, until the enemy is nearly within striking distance. As the target is approached the conning-tower must be closed, the protruding top sunk lower and lower in the water, and finally completely submerged, nothing appearing at the surface but the periscope tube just above the waves. With the aid of this instrument the target may still be seen distinctly, but the arc of vision is limited, and guessing the distance or rate of speed of the target is very difficult. Nevertheless, by estimating the distance before submerging, and knowing the rate of speed of his little craft, the submarine gunner may still get his range and find his target. If the waves are at all high, this is very difficult, as the water, slopping over the periscope, obscures the vision for several seconds at a time and is very distracting. But some experiments carried on during the summer of 1908 show that, even in broad daylight, it is no easy matter for a battle-ship to detect the approach of submarines untilwell within torpedo range, even when an attack is expected.
In these experiments the United States cruiser "Yankee" in Buzzard's Bay was attacked by five submarines of the most recent type. The "Yankee" remained stationary expecting the attack, but to offset this disadvantage the crew was fully aware of the exact time that the attack was to be made. Indeed the officers of the cruiser had watched the submarines steam away until they disappeared. When twenty miles from the "Yankee" the five submarines submerged and headed for the cruiser, making observations at intervals by means of the periscope.
The day was perfectly clear, and all on board the "Yankee" were keenly watching for the expected submarines. Yet the first intimation they had of the proximity of the diving boats was the striking of five torpedoes against the cruiser's hull. Each submarine had scored a bull's-eye. Not content with this success, the submarines repeated the attack from a nearer point, again scoring five hits before their presence was detected.
One great obstacle to successful submarine navigation on an extended scale is the difficulty of keeping a supply of air not only for the use of the crew, but for the engines. Any really powerful engine, either steam or gas, consumes an enormous amount of air. This is not true, of course, of the storage batteries which furnish the power for running while submerged, but these, at best, are but feeble generators of energy, although Edison's recent improvements may materially improve their power. If gasoline engines could beused during submergence a far greater speed would be acquired; but this is out of the question, as such engines would consume the air supply of the little boat far too rapidly. The compromise, now adopted universally, is to use gasoline motors while running at the surface or partly submerged, when the conning-tower is open, utilizing part of their energy meanwhile to charge the storage batteries.
It is evident, therefore, that no great speed can be expected of the submarine in its present state; and in point of fact the largest type is able to develop only about ten or eleven knots when submerged, and fifteen while at the surface—far below the speed of any other type of war vessel. But the experimental attacks upon the "Yankee" prove that they are dangerous fighting craft, and a recent voyage by a flotilla of Italian submersibles shows that such boats are no longer harbor-locked vessels. In 1908 the Italian flotilla in question made a voyage from Venice to Spezia, a distance of thirteen hundred miles, without assistance from auxiliary boats. About the same time a British submarine flotilla, on a three-hundred mile trip, remained submerged for forty consecutive hours. The depth of the submergence in this case was only a few feet, but great depths may be reached with relative safety. In one test a Lake boat carrying her crew sank to a depth of one hundred and thirty-eight feet, returning to the surface in a few minutes. At another time the "Octopus," without her crew, was lowered to a depth of two hundred and five feet, sustaining a pressure of fifteen thousand tons, without injury.
A FLEET OF BRITISH SUB-MARINES MANŒUVERING AT THE SURFACE.
A FLEET OF BRITISH SUB-MARINES MANŒUVERING AT THE SURFACE.
Such performances as these are thought-provocative, to say the least. Submarine boats that can hit the target without being detected, go on cruises unattended for more than a thousand miles, and remain submerged for more than a day and a half, must be classed as efficient engines of warfare.
Since the submersible is designed to spend most of its time on the surface of the water like an ordinary boat, it must have considerable buoyancy, but it must also have some means of getting rid of this buoyancy quickly when submergence is necessary. The submarine proper has only from five to eight per cent. buoyancy, while some of the submersibles have twenty-five per cent. or more. With such boats of the ordinary size some fifty tons of water must be admitted before bringing them to a condition in which they can be submerged; but this can be done very quickly. One of the submarines of the U. S. fleet in an actual test filled her ballast tanks and dived to a depth of twenty feet in four minutes and twenty seconds.
It is not impossible that the recent triumphs in aërial navigation may have an important bearing on the use of submarines in future wars. It is well known that large objects when submerged even to a considerable depth are discernible from a height in the air directly above them. It is quite possible, therefore, that swift aeroplanes circling about a fleet of war vessels might be able to detect submarine boats when these boats were near enough the surface to use their periscopes. If so it might be possible for the aeroplanes to drop torpedoes upon the submerged boats without danger to themselves.Or if the aeroplanes carried no effective weapons, they could at least act in the capacity of scouts and warn their battleship consorts of the presence of the submarine. Of course, this would be possible only in daylight, the airships giving no protection against night attacks.
MODERNrailroads are the outcome of the invention of the locomotive; yet the invention of the practical locomotive was the outcome of iron railroads which had been in existence for half a century. These iron railroads were a development from wooden predecessors, which were the direct descendants of the smooth roadways of the Greeks and Romans. Indeed it is quite reasonable to suppose that the ancients may have been familiar with the use of parallel rails with grooved or flanged wheels to fit them; but if so there seems to be no definite record of the fact, and our knowledge of true railroads goes back only to the seventeenth century.
As early as 1630, it is recorded that a road built of parallel rails of wood upon which cars were run was used in a coal-mine near Newcastle, England; and there is no reason to suppose that this road was a novelty at the time. Half a century later there was a railroad in operation near the river Tyne which has been described by Roger North as being made of "rails of timber placed end to end and exactly straight, and in two parallel lines to each other. On these rails bulky cars were made to run on four rollers fitting the rails,whereby the carriage was made so easy that one horse would draw four or five chaldrons of coal to a load."
At this time the use of iron rails had not been thought of, or at least had not been tried, probably from the fact that iron was then very expensive. Even the wooden rails in use, and the wheels that ran upon them, were of no fixed pattern. Some of these rails were in the form of depressed grooves into which an ordinary wheel fitted. But these were very unsatisfactory because they became filled so easily with dirt and other obstructions, and a more common type was a rail raised a few inches above the ground like a molding, a grooved wheel running on the surface.
Such rails were short lived, splitting and wearing away quickly, and being easily injured by other vehicles. But they were, on the whole, more satisfactory than the depressed rails, and were the type adopted when iron rails first came into use, about 1767. Ten years later the idea of the single flange was conceived, not placed on the wheels of the cars as at present, but cast on the rails themselves. These flanges were first made on the outside of the rails, and later placed on the inside, the wheels of the cars used on such rails being of the ordinary pattern with flat tires.
But, in 1789, William Jessop, of Leicestershire, began building cars with wheels having single flanges on the inside like modern car wheels, to run upon an elevated molding-shaped iron rail; and the many points of superiority of this type of wheel soon led to its general adoption. So that aside from some minor changes, the type of rails and wheels in use at the close of theeighteenth century was practically the same as at present.
It is probable that if the first inventors had attempted to make locomotives to run upon the railroads then in existence they would have been successful many years before they were, but the advantages of railroads was not as evident then as now, and the inventors' efforts were confined to attempts to produce locomotive wagons—automobiles—to operate upon any road where horses and carts could be used.
Some of their creations were of the most fanciful and impractical design, although quite a number of them were "locomotives" in the sense that they could be propelled over the ground by their own energy, but only at a snail's pace, and by the expenditure of a great amount of power. Several inventors tried combining the principle of the steamboat and the locomotive in the same vehicle, and in 1803 a Philadelphian by the name of Evans made a steam dredge and land-wagon combined which was fairly successful in both capacities of boat and wagon. He called his machine the "Oruktor Amphibious," and upon one occasion made a trip through the streets of Philadelphia, and then plunged into the Schuylkill River and continued his journey on the water. But as he was unable to arouse anything but curiosity, the financiers refusing to take his machine seriously, he finally gave up his attempts to solve the problem of steam locomotion.
The year before this, in 1802, Richard Trevithick, in England, had been more successful in his attempts at producing a locomotive. He produced a steam locomotivethat operated on the streets of London and the public highways, hauling a wagonload of people. But the unevenness of the roads proved disastrous to his engine, and as it could make no better time than a slow horse, it was soon abandoned. But Trevithick had learned from this failure that a good roadbed was quite as essential to the success of a locomotive as the machine itself, and two years later he produced what is usually regarded as the first railway locomotive. This was built for the Merthyr-Tydvil Railway in South Wales, and on several occasions hauled loads of ten tons of iron at a fair rate of speed. It was not considered a success financially, however, and was finally abandoned.
At this time a curious belief had become current among the inventors to the effect that if a smooth-surface rail and a smooth-surface wheel were used, there would not be sufficient friction between the two to make it possible to haul loads, or more than barely move the locomotive itself. Learned mathematicians proved conclusively on paper by endless hair-splitting calculations that the thing was impossible,—that any locomotive strong enough to propel itself along a smooth iron rail would be heavy enough to break the strongest rail, and smash the roadbed. In the face of these arguments the idea of smooth rails and smooth wheels was abandoned for the time. Trevithick himself was convinced, and turned his attention to the perfecting of an engine with toothed drive-wheels running on a track with rack-rails. But this engine soon jolted itself and its track into the junk-heap without doing anything to solve the problem of locomotion.
Shortly after this, a man named Chapman, of Newcastle, built a road and stretched a chain from one end to the other, this chain being arranged to pass around a barrel-wheel on the locomotive, which thus pulled itself along, just as some of the boats on the Rhine do at the present time. But the machinery for operating this engine was clumsy and unsatisfactory, and the road proved a complete failure.
Perhaps the most remarkable locomotive ever conceived and constructed was one built by Brunton, of Derbyshire, in 1813. This machine was designed to go upon legs like a horse, and was a combination of steam wagon and mechanical horse. The wagon part of the combination ran upon a track like an ordinary car, while the mechanical legs were designed to trot behind and "kick the wagon along." "The legs or propellers, imitated the legs of a man or the fore-legs of a horse, with joints, and when worked by the machine alternately lifted and pressed against the ground or road, propelling the engine forward, as a man shoves a boat ahead by pressing with a pole against the bottom of a river." This machine was able to travel at a rate somewhat slower than that at which a man usually walks; and its tractive force was that of four horses. But after it had demonstrated its impotency by crawling along for a few miles, it terminated its career by "blowing up in disgust," killing and injuring several by-standers.
The much disputed point as to whether a smooth-wheeled locomotive would be practical on smooth rails was not settled until 1813. An inventor named Blackett,of Wylam, who with his engineer, William Hedley, had built several steam locomotives which only managed to crawl along the tracks under the most favorable conditions, wishing to determine if it were the fault of locomotives or the system on which they worked that accounted for his failures, constructed a car which was propelled by six men working levers geared to the wheels, like the modern hand-car.
In this way he determined that there was sufficient adhesion between smooth rails and smooth wheels for locomotives to haul heavy loads behind them, even on grades of considerable incline. The experiments of Blackett settled this question beyond the possibility of controversy, and removed a very important obstacle from the path of future inventors. Among these inventors was young George Stephenson, who was rapidly making a reputation for himself as a practical engineer.
GEORGE STEPHENSON
GEORGE STEPHENSON
Stephenson was born on June 9, 1781, in the small colliery village of Wylam, on the river Tyne. His parents were extremely poor, and as the boy was sent to work as soon as he was large enough to find employment of any kind, he was given no education, even to the extent of learning the alphabet. It was only after he had spent many years in the colliery, and had finally worked himself up from the position of "picker" at three pence a day to that of fireman, that he was able to spend the necessary time and pennies to acquire something of an education. Then he attended a nightschool, learned his alphabet, was able to scrawl his name at eighteen years of age, and a little later could read, write, and do sums in arithmetic.
But if deficient in letters, there was one field in which he had no superior,—that was in the practical handling of a steam-engine. His position in the mine gave him a chance to study the workings of the engines then in use, and at every opportunity, on holidays and after working-hours, he was in the habit of dismantling his engine, and carefully studying every detail of its construction. Thus by the time he had reached his majority he was a skillful engineer, besides having many new ideas that had developed during his examinations of the machinery. But besides his knowledge of engineering, he was an accomplished workman in other fields. He was a good shoemaker, watch-and clock-repairer, and tailors' cutter, at all of which trades he worked at odd times to increase his income. Thus he was a veritable jack-of-all-trades; with the unusual qualification, that he was master ofone.
By the time he was twenty-six years old he was holding the position of engineer to a coal-mining company, and had acquired the confidence of his employers to such an extent that he was permitted to build a locomotive for them—a thing that had been his ambition for several years. This was in 1807, the same year that Robert Fulton demonstrated the possibilities of steam navigation.
In the construction of this engine Stephenson introduced several novel features of his own inventing, although on the whole no new principles were involved;and in practice this engine showed several points of superiority over its predecessors. It would draw eight loaded wagons of thirty tons' weight at the rate of four miles an hour on an ascending grade of one in four hundred and fifty feet. But it had two very radical defects—it would not keep up steam and the noise of the steam-pipe exhausting into the open air frightened the horses of the neighborhood to such a degree that the authorities ordered the inventor either to stop running his engine, or suppress its noise. As an experiment, therefore, Stephenson arranged the exhaust pipes so that they opened into the smokestack, where the sound would be muffled. But when the engine was now tried he found to his surprise that this single expedient had solved both difficulties, the exhausting steam causing such an improvement in the draught of his furnace that double the quantity of steam was generated. This discovery helped to simplify later experiments, for the difficulty of keeping up steam had been one of the great obstacles encountered by the inventors.
Stephenson's second locomotive was an improvement over his first in many ways, but it was still far from being the practical machine that was to supplant horse-power. It could haul heavier loads than teams of horses, and was more convenient for certain purposes; but it was no more economical.
As yet the only use to which locomotives had been put was that of hauling cars in coal-mines. Indeed, the only railroads then constructed were those used in mines, the idea of utilizing such roads for passenger and freight traffic not having occurred to anyone untilabout 1820. Then the Englishman, Thomas Gray, suggested the construction of such a road between Liverpool and Manchester, advocating steam as the motive power. His idea was looked upon as visionary, and as he persisted in his efforts to interest prominent people in the scheme, he came to be very generally regarded as an enthusiastic but somewhat crackbrained fanatic.
But meanwhile the coal railroads were being extended to such lengths that they were assuming the proportions of modern railroads. The motive power on most of the roads was horses, although here and there a traction engine using chain or cable, was employed for certain purposes. In 1825, however, Stephenson began the construction of an improved locomotive, this time at his own modest establishment; and a little later this engine made the trial that really demonstrated the possibilities of steam locomotion, although this was not universally recognized until the success of theRocketa few years later.
A great deal of excitement and speculation arose throughout the country when the trial day approached. Great crowds assembled from every direction to witness the trial; some, more sanguine, came to witness the success, but far the greater portion came to see the bubble burst. The proceedings began at Busselton incline, where the stationary engine drew a train up the incline on one side and let it down on the other. The wagons were then loaded.
"At the foot of this plane a locomotive, driven by Mr. Stephenson himself, was attached to the train. Itconsisted of six wagons loaded with coal and flour, next a passenger coach (the first ever run upon a railroad) filled with the directors and their friends, then twenty wagons fitted up with temporary seats for passengers, and lastly came six wagons loaded with coal, making in all twenty-eight vehicles. The word being given that all was ready, the engine began to move, gradually at first, but afterward, in part of the road, attaining a speed of twelve miles an hour. At that time the number of passengers amounted to four hundred and fifty, which would, with the remainder of the load, amount to upwards of ninety tons. The train arrived at Darlington, eight and three-quarter miles, in sixty-five minutes. Here it was stopped and a fresh supply of water obtained, the six coal-cars for Darlington detached, and the word given to go ahead. The engine started, and arrived at Stockton, twelve miles, in three hours and seven minutes including stoppages. By the time the train reached Stockton the number of passengers amounted to over six hundred."
From this description it will be seen that the coal roads had been extended to form interurban railways. In this connection it is interesting to note the increase of traffic that developed on this particular road in the years immediately following the invention of the practical locomotive. When the road was projected it was estimated that its maximum carrying capacity would not exceed 10,000 tons of coal yearly. A few years later, when locomotives had come into use, the regular yearly carriage amounted to 500,000 tons.