Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?How long did it take to build siege engines in the middle ages?How were Warrant Officers appointed to Royal Navy ships during the Age of Sail?In the Film Master and Commander, why do they start towing their rowboats after they beat to quarters?Why did navies abandon armour?How long did it take mail to get between Madrid and Mexico?How did sailing technology improve during the Age of Sail?Why did post-Roman rulers abandon tax-paid army?Did any age of sail ship have a “back-bone cannon”?Why didn't the Trafalgar Way messengers sail up the English Channel?Has there been any big collisions with ice bergs after Titantic or during the Age of Sail?

Why must traveling waves have the same amplitude to form a standing wave?

Is it normal that my co-workers at a fitness company criticize my food choices?

Does this AnyDice function accurately calculate the number of ogres you make unconcious with three 4th-level castings of Sleep?

Be in awe of my brilliance!

Equation Array Exceed Right Margin

How is the Swiss post e-voting system supposed to work, and how was it wrong?

Is it possible to upcast ritual spells?

What options are left, if Britain cannot decide?

Did Ender ever learn that he killed Stilson and/or Bonzo?

What does it mean to make a bootable LiveUSB?

Does this property of comaximal ideals always holds?

When do we add an hyphen (-) to a complex adjective word?

Informing my boss about nasty remarks about me from a colleague

Brexit - No Deal Rejection

Have researchers managed to "reverse time"? If so, what does that mean for physics?

How do anti-virus programs start at Windows boot?

Professor being mistaken for a grad student

Why are there 40 737 Max planes in flight when they have been grounded as not airworthy?

Would it take an action or something similar to activate the blindsight property of a Dragon Mask?

Instead of Universal Basic Income, why not Universal Basic NEEDS?

Can anyone tell me why this program fails?

Getting particular feature using expression in PyQGIS?

Provisioning profile doesn't include the application-identifier and keychain-access-groups entitlements

Is it possible that AIC = BIC?



Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?


How long did it take to build siege engines in the middle ages?How were Warrant Officers appointed to Royal Navy ships during the Age of Sail?In the Film Master and Commander, why do they start towing their rowboats after they beat to quarters?Why did navies abandon armour?How long did it take mail to get between Madrid and Mexico?How did sailing technology improve during the Age of Sail?Why did post-Roman rulers abandon tax-paid army?Did any age of sail ship have a “back-bone cannon”?Why didn't the Trafalgar Way messengers sail up the English Channel?Has there been any big collisions with ice bergs after Titantic or during the Age of Sail?













18















  • 1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.


  • 1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.


  • 1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.


  • 1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.


  • 1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..


  • Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).



Question:

IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.











share|improve this question



















  • 6





    Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

    – Mark C. Wallace
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

    – sempaiscuba
    18 hours ago











  • The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago











  • @RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

    – JMS
    10 hours ago











  • @JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago















18















  • 1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.


  • 1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.


  • 1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.


  • 1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.


  • 1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..


  • Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).



Question:

IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.











share|improve this question



















  • 6





    Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

    – Mark C. Wallace
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

    – sempaiscuba
    18 hours ago











  • The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago











  • @RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

    – JMS
    10 hours ago











  • @JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago













18












18








18








  • 1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.


  • 1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.


  • 1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.


  • 1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.


  • 1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..


  • Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).



Question:

IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.











share|improve this question
















  • 1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.


  • 1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.


  • 1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.


  • 1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.


  • 1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..


  • Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).



Question:

IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.








military age-of-sail steamboat commercial






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 18 hours ago







JMS

















asked 18 hours ago









JMSJMS

14.4k340113




14.4k340113







  • 6





    Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

    – Mark C. Wallace
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

    – sempaiscuba
    18 hours ago











  • The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago











  • @RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

    – JMS
    10 hours ago











  • @JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago












  • 6





    Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

    – Mark C. Wallace
    18 hours ago






  • 3





    Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

    – sempaiscuba
    18 hours ago











  • The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago











  • @RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

    – JMS
    10 hours ago











  • @JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

    – RonJohn
    10 hours ago







6




6





Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

– Mark C. Wallace
18 hours ago





Infrastructure? Steam is not useful without coaling stations. Replacement capital cost? Ships were expensive, and it probably didn't make sense to just discard a major capital expense before you were ready to replace it.

– Mark C. Wallace
18 hours ago




3




3





Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

– sempaiscuba
18 hours ago





Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950

– sempaiscuba
18 hours ago













The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

– RonJohn
10 hours ago





The answers can be boiled down to logistics.

– RonJohn
10 hours ago













@RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

– JMS
10 hours ago





@RonJohn, It took nearly 100 years to completely abandon sail once a viable steam alternative was demonstrated. Oil would have a worse logistic problem for Britain but navy's would transform to oil away from coal within fifteen years.. HMS Spiteful (1899) was the first oil warship.. within 12 years the British Navy was converting to oil, even though they didn't have any oil wells in Britain nor access to oil when they made the decision.

– JMS
10 hours ago













@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

– RonJohn
10 hours ago





@JMS presumably the RN wasn't so stupid as to just convert to oil just because it was new and whiz-bang. It's guaranteed that they worked out the logistics of refueling those ships before sending them in mass quantities into the fleet.

– RonJohn
10 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















30














I think it comes down to a few basic factors:



  1. Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).


  2. Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).


  3. Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.


  4. The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.



Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.



...



The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.





[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.



The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17







share|improve this answer




















  • 2





    Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

    – jamesqf
    17 hours ago











  • I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

    – Pieter Geerkens
    16 hours ago











  • And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

    – GalacticCowboy
    15 hours ago


















14














You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.



This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.



Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If not you need to keep sails on hand.



As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.






share|improve this answer

























  • It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

    – Mazura
    12 hours ago






  • 1





    A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

    – Separatrix
    2 hours ago


















0














1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.



2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.



3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.



Developing all of the above took time.






share|improve this answer
























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "324"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    30














    I think it comes down to a few basic factors:



    1. Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).


    2. Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).


    3. Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.


    4. The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.



    Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.



    ...



    The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.





    [For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.



    The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17







    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

      – jamesqf
      17 hours ago











    • I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

      – Pieter Geerkens
      16 hours ago











    • And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

      – GalacticCowboy
      15 hours ago















    30














    I think it comes down to a few basic factors:



    1. Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).


    2. Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).


    3. Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.


    4. The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.



    Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.



    ...



    The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.





    [For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.



    The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17







    share|improve this answer




















    • 2





      Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

      – jamesqf
      17 hours ago











    • I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

      – Pieter Geerkens
      16 hours ago











    • And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

      – GalacticCowboy
      15 hours ago













    30












    30








    30







    I think it comes down to a few basic factors:



    1. Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).


    2. Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).


    3. Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.


    4. The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.



    Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.



    ...



    The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.





    [For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.



    The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17







    share|improve this answer















    I think it comes down to a few basic factors:



    1. Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).


    2. Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).


    3. Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.


    4. The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.



    Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.



    ...



    The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.





    [For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.



    The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17








    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 17 hours ago

























    answered 18 hours ago









    Steve BirdSteve Bird

    13k35666




    13k35666







    • 2





      Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

      – jamesqf
      17 hours ago











    • I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

      – Pieter Geerkens
      16 hours ago











    • And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

      – GalacticCowboy
      15 hours ago












    • 2





      Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

      – jamesqf
      17 hours ago











    • I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

      – Pieter Geerkens
      16 hours ago











    • And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

      – GalacticCowboy
      15 hours ago







    2




    2





    Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

    – jamesqf
    17 hours ago





    Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.

    – jamesqf
    17 hours ago













    I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

    – Pieter Geerkens
    16 hours ago





    I would add that hulls also had to be redesigned to leverage steam power properly, thereby increasing the efficiency of the steam power, and this also took a few design generations.

    – Pieter Geerkens
    16 hours ago













    And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

    – GalacticCowboy
    15 hours ago





    And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).

    – GalacticCowboy
    15 hours ago











    14














    You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.



    This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.



    Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If not you need to keep sails on hand.



    As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.






    share|improve this answer

























    • It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

      – Mazura
      12 hours ago






    • 1





      A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

      – Separatrix
      2 hours ago















    14














    You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.



    This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.



    Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If not you need to keep sails on hand.



    As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.






    share|improve this answer

























    • It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

      – Mazura
      12 hours ago






    • 1





      A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

      – Separatrix
      2 hours ago













    14












    14








    14







    You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.



    This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.



    Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If not you need to keep sails on hand.



    As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.






    share|improve this answer















    You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.



    This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #2. It's beyond the economics and into the availability.



    Do you have reliably supplied coaling stations all the way to, say, Australia? If not you need to keep sails on hand.



    As an example the famous Clipper Ship Cutty Sark was one of the fastest trading ships in the world when she launched (1869) and was used for the China tea trade. But coal quickly covered that route so then she was diverted to trade with Australia.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 15 hours ago

























    answered 16 hours ago









    AllInOneAllInOne

    1,8472721




    1,8472721












    • It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

      – Mazura
      12 hours ago






    • 1





      A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

      – Separatrix
      2 hours ago

















    • It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

      – Mazura
      12 hours ago






    • 1





      A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

      – Separatrix
      2 hours ago
















    It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

    – Mazura
    12 hours ago





    It's kinda hard to stop and plant some coal like they used to do with trees to replace broken masts. In 1869, plutonium is not available at ever corner drugstore.

    – Mazura
    12 hours ago




    1




    1





    A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

    – Separatrix
    2 hours ago





    A steamship could do 8-10 knots, a tea clipper could do 16-18, when time is of the essence it's an easy choice.

    – Separatrix
    2 hours ago











    0














    1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.



    2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.



    3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.



    Developing all of the above took time.






    share|improve this answer





























      0














      1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.



      2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.



      3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.



      Developing all of the above took time.






      share|improve this answer



























        0












        0








        0







        1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.



        2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.



        3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.



        Developing all of the above took time.






        share|improve this answer















        1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.



        2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.



        3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.



        Developing all of the above took time.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 4 hours ago

























        answered 10 hours ago









        JosJos

        9,27412246




        9,27412246



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?When are black boxes used?What protects the location beacon (pinger) of a flight data recorder?Is there anywhere I can pick up raw flight data recorder information?Who legally owns the Flight Data Recorder?Constructing flight recorder dataWhy are FDRs and CVRs still two separate physical devices?What are the data elements shown on the GE235 flight data recorder (FDR) plot?Are CVR and FDR reset after every flight?What is the format of data stored by a Flight Data Recorder?How much data is stored in the flight data recorder per hour in a typical flight of an A380?Is a smart flight data recorder possible?

            Which is better: GPT or RelGAN for text generation?2019 Community Moderator ElectionWhat is the difference between TextGAN and LM for text generation?GANs (generative adversarial networks) possible for text as well?Generator loss not decreasing- text to image synthesisChoosing a right algorithm for template-based text generationHow should I format input and output for text generation with LSTMsGumbel Softmax vs Vanilla Softmax for GAN trainingWhich neural network to choose for classification from text/speech?NLP text autoencoder that generates text in poetic meterWhat is the interpretation of the expectation notation in the GAN formulation?What is the difference between TextGAN and LM for text generation?How to prepare the data for text generation task

            Is there a general name for the setup in which payoffs are not known exactly but players try to influence each other's perception of the payoffs?Osborne, Nash equilibria and the correctness of beliefsIs there a name for this family of games (Binomial games?)?Perfect Bayesian EquilibriumCalculating mixed strategy equilibrium in battle of sexesPure Strategy SPNEIs there a commitment mechanism which allows players to achieve pareto optimal solutions?Extensive Form GamesAn $n$-player prisoner's dilemma where a coalition of 2 players is better off defectingTit-For-Stat Strategy Best RepliesPotential solutions of the $n$-player Prisoner's Dilemma