The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

co | | MARINE REVIEW. [November 23, SECOND DAY'S SESSION. GENERAL INTEREST IN THE SHIP BUILDING PRACTIOB OF THE GREAT LAKES-- CRANE APPLIANCES AT THE UNION IRON WORKS, SAN FRANCISOO, The morning session on Friday, Nov. 17, opened with the reading by Mr. W. I. Babcock of Chicagio of his very interesting paper on "Systems of Wiork in a Great Lake Ship Yard." This paper is printed in full else- where. No paper presented during the entire meeting engendered more general interest. Mr. Babcock was asked many questions regarding par- ticular points of practice in the yards on fresh water. "Those of us who have to do with the building of warships at home and abroad," said Naval Constructor William Baxter of the Mare island (Cal.) navy yard, "are more or less familiar with great lake ship building. We get all the wrinkles we can from the lake builders." Mr. G. W. Dickie said that the lake system of ship building was cer- tainly startling to people unfamiliar with it. He had believed for a long time that many of the innovations in lake craft should be established in ocean vessels and could never understand why they had not been. An- other matter of interest to him was that it should be possible with vessels of 400 feet. length to have 288 feet in one mould. He did not see, he said, why this should 'not prevail in sea vessels, but the builders have not as yet been able'to do it.- Mr. Dickie, also-read a communication that had been placed.in his hands by his brother, Mr. James. Dickie, superintendent of the Union:Iron Works. It was in part as follows: |... 4 "T have read with a great deal of interest Mr. Babcock's able and in- structive paper and my only regret is that we who are on the coast cannot -- build ships quite as much on the factory principle as they do on the lakes. First, in large vessels that go on long voyages the engine cannot be put in the stern, for the reason that a vessel which uses from 1,000 to 1,500 . tons of coal on a voyage would be very much down 'by the stern when leaving and very much down by the head on arrival, unless half of the coal were stowed in the forward end and some mechanical conveyer used to 'bring it aft to the 'boilers when required. The cost of this would, of course, be greater than the advantage. Oil vessels are usually built that way, but the nature of that cargo makes the matter of 'trim a very simple problem. Second, it is not advisable to make an ocean going steamer with so long a straight body and full ends. Third, vessels with the engines near amidships should have enough rise of floor so that they can be drained properly, otherwise there is always a large quantity of water left in the tanks, which is unnecessary weight to carry. In regard to the method of getting out work, it may 'be said that we use very much the same system with the difference that we use battens and gauges wherever wecan and templates instead of moulds--our templates being from 1-8 to 3-16 inch thick--and instead of boring the templates we drive the center- punch through them and center all our holes, using a center on the punch, which makes much more accurate work, and I think on the whole is cheaper. When over in Europe three years ago, and going through one of the yards with the manager, he remarked: 'We punch very rapidly here, forty holes per minute.' I watched very closely and saw that the puncher sometimes would nearly hit the mark with his punch. I said to the man- ager: 'That bar is almost spoiled; there is not half a dozen good holes in it. Where are you putting those frames together?' We went to look at them. When he saw them he itook off his hat and swore. I thought while our centering was a little slow it was-the cheapest. (We do very little reaming.) We built eleven barges at one time to be shipped foreign. We got out all the material from patterns and templates and only put one together to try it. The remaining ten were put together at their destina- tion. Wee were informed that they went together very nicely. In the bat- tleship we are now building, the Ohio, all the keel, vertical and flat, all the longitudinals, the armor shelf and all the interior bulkheads were gotten out and the vessel put together using the longitudinals instead of ribbands for frame spacing and for the bulkheads to regulate the trans- verse shape, and we always find when work is laid out that it comes much more accurate than building the vessel by piecemeal. We find no diffi- culty in laying off the bilge plates, and prefer it to using a template, as' the difference of length of the outside plate at the butt lap is much easier to calculate than to get it with a template from the work." Mr. R. L. Newman of the American Ship Building Co., Cleveland, said he had often thought the strain on the tank of the lake carrier was excessive. Mr. Geo. W. Dickie asked about the manner of carrying water ballast in lake ships. Mr. Babcock replied that the practice now in vogue had been followed for many years, although it was not one that he entirely approved of by reason of the danger that when the bow of a vessel rises atid ithe 'stern falls the rush of water backward might carry away the engine bulkhead. There is, however, less danger im long ships, he stated, since the long ships do not pitch nearly so much as the short ones as they extend over.a greater length of sea. As far-as rolling is concerned, he was of, the opinion that the ships are so strong that free water makes' them easier than otherwise. . In conclusion Mr. Babcock said: "Up on the lakes we are not espe- cially bothered by precedent. The people up there if anything new occurs to them, believe in trying it whether anybody else ever did or not. I surprised an Englishman who the other day visited our yard and found fault with everything, by telling him that we didn't care how they built ships in England, as we built them for our own business. It is these facts which make the lake ships without a peer anywhere for the special con. ditions for which they are fitted." The discussion regarding lake ships gave Col. Stevens the text for some very interesting remarks about the growth of American ship build- ing. He said 'there was no doubt but that the distinctively American method of building merchant ships had been originated on the great lakes, and thought the lake ships indicated most strikingly that the builders were experts on the question of "where to slight the job." "T never found any- where, said Col. Stevens, "any figures per ton mile for the movement of freight that will compare with those reported from'the lakes and I under- stand that these figures are not faked." OVERHEAD ORANES, STAGING AND RIVETER-CARRYING APPLIANCES. The next paper on the programme was that dealing with "Overhead Cranes, Staging and Riveter-Carrying Appliances for the Ship Yard." Mr. James Dickie of the Union Iron Works describes in this paper the framework used in the construction of vessels at San Francisco. At the San Francisco yard the framework covers the entire vessel while building. Four slips are covered in this way--three of 300 feet length and one of 408 feet length. The system is practically the same as that adopted by Swan & Hunter on the Tyne, excepting that the San Francisco struc- tures are of timber while that at Swan & Hunter's is steel. Mr. Dickie refers to the cantilever traveling cranes at Newport News, to the overhead crane or gantry so much used on the great lakes and to the large gantry at the works of Harland & Wolff, Belfast, but says that none of these per- form all four of the essential functions carried out in the kind of structure that is used at San Francisco and at the works of Messrs. Swan '& Hunter in England. The four functions referred to by Mr. Dickie are: Hoisting and depositing material in any position; provision overhead for power riveting, now coming so generally into use; staging necessary for the con- struction of the vessel, which is an important item when provided sepa- . rately; necessity of keeping upper works fair while in early stages of con- struction. Space will very probably be provided later on for more extended reference to this paper and for reproduction of some of the drawings: Discussion of this paper was opened by President H. G. Morse of the New York Ship Building Co., who ;made.a,few remarks. regarding the types of crane employed at the Cramp and Newport News yards, and which have been described,several times in these columns. Mr, John Platt explained that the monster gantry at the yard of Harland & Wolff, Belfast, was primarily a riveting gantry and was not designed for hand- ling material. Naval Constructor Bowles said he believed that the scheme illustrated in Mr. Dickie's paper.was the best in existence. HICHBORN VS. MELVILUE. BUREAU OHIEFS ENTER INTO A SPIRITED DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THE NEW DENVER CLASS OF CRUISERS AS COMPARED WITH THE CINCINNATI AND RALEIGH. Rear Admiral Hichborn, chief constructor of the navy, usually con- tributes [to these meetings the latest designs of vessels for the navy. This year he presented to the society a description of the sheathed protected cruisers--Denver class--provided for in the last appropriations for in- crease of the navy, together with the general plans, a statement of the general characteristics, weights, etc. The Denver class of vessels was quite fully described in the special naval edition of the Review, published a few weeks ago. In presenting this paper, Admiral Hichborn took occa- sion to refer Ito published statements relative to the cruisers built for the Brazilian government and purchased by the United States just prior to the outbreak of hostilities with Spain. He said: 'Somuch has been published about these cruisers that I cannot refrain from presenting a few facts-- principally because the published statements have been used for the pur- pose of making unfavorable comparisons with our new designs. One of these publications, for instance, in a scientific paper, contained cuts of the vessels, with certain particulars headed, respectively, 'the 3,500-ton pro- tected cruiser New Orleans' and 'the proposed 3,500-ton semi-protected cruiser Denver and class.' It takes but a glance to discover the first gross error in this comparison, for those familiar with ithe facts--the New Or- leans having left the New York yard a short time ago, in ordinary full Icad condition, displacing over 4,000 tons. Under exactly similar condi- tions, the Denver and class will displace only 3,500 tons, and at this dis- placement the actual weight of ammunition carried and the actual weight of stores aboard will be greater than in the case of the New Orleans at 4,000 tons. Moreover, the coal will be practically the same, for the Den- ver will stow and carry 700 tons readily on 3,500 tons displacement, while the most that has ever tbeen in the New Orleans' bunkers, as far as is known--and certainly what was in her bunkers when displacing the 4,000 tons referred to above--was less than 750 tons. I do not pretend to criticise the design or construction of the New Orleans, but she is essen- tially a 'show' vessel, cleverly designed to that end, but not such a design as would 'be found emanating from the British admiralty or from our navy department. Briefly stated, she was designed purely for speed and the heaviest battery the law would allow. With ther extra length of about 50 feet she will not maneuver as well as the Denver class: with her extra draught of about 3 feet she is considerably handicapped for work in shal- low harbors; with her heavy battery (of little advantage, considering the small amount of ammunition carried) she could not stand the weight of a flush upper deck, and even without it her top weights are such that, par- ticularly without the water-line protection of celliilose provided for the Denver class, she is not nearly so well prepared to stand punishment 'as will beithose vessels. Her powerful machinery and large battery necessi--- tate a crew out ot, all proportion with the accommodations provided, and considerable objection has been 'filed, by those connected with 'thé 'ship, in regard to 'the 'unsatisfactoty provision for officers and 'crew. including" boat 'capacity for very little more than 'half' the 'number. 'Her auxiliary appliances for lighting, heating, refrigerating, etc., were, in some Cases. omitted in the original design, or were meagre and unsatisfactory, and have had to 'be added since, with increased weight. There are different standards for comparison in cases like the one in point, and facts, even may be distorted so as to delude the unpracticed reader. The article I Heveoncchel #0; in addition to being not entirely correct, was very mis- teading, though probably not intentionally so; some of the original in- formation, relative to the New Orleans, published in the annual revort of the bureau of construction and repair for last year having itself been found since to 'be not entirely correct. There is also room for considerable dif- ferences of opinion in determining the elemental characteristics of a design Personally, however, I 'believe our experience with the Cincinnati and Raleigh was a Sufficient illustration of what to expect from roadie machinery and battery into a small cruiser at the expense of cruising effi- ciency. I predict great usefulness for the Denver and class, as well 2 considerable popularity among sea-going officers," os Bs A part of Admiral Hichborn's paper other than that above quoted