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?
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
|
show 1 more comment
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
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
|
show 1 more comment
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont the first ship to demonstrate the feasibility of steam propulsion for commercial use, but it also carried sail.
1819, The first steamship to cross the Atlantic was the American City of Savannah, but it also carried sail.
1837, Britain's steam-powered Great Western established regular transatlantic passenger service, but it also carried sail.
1838, SS Archimedes was the first steamship to be driven by a screw propeller, but it also carried sail.
1871, The first British Navy ship not to carry masts or expensive sails the H.M.S. Devastation..
Commercial steam ships regularly carried masts and auxiliary sails into the 20th century (1900s).
Question:
IF steam power was superior to sail, Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?.
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
military age-of-sail steamboat commercial
edited 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
|
show 1 more comment
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
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
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
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #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.
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
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
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
add a comment |
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
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
add a comment |
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
I think it comes down to a few basic factors:
Early steam engines weren't very efficient or reliable. So it made sense to retain sails as a backup should the steam engine(s) breakdown or should the ship run out of fuel (especially on longer oceanic voyages were replenishment was uncertain).
Wind-power is essentially free (once you've invested in the masts & sails in the first place), whereas you had to keep buying coal. As the steam engines were inefficient it made sense to have sails to supplement steam. This could be in the form of using them both together to add a few knots to the ship's speed or using one or the other as circumstances demanded (i.e. steam into the wind, sail down wind).
Sailors are a superstitious and conservative folk, they knew sails and sailing, and it took some time to wean them off.
The transition was dependent on a number of later technological changes, such as improvements in boiler design (to improve power, reliability and efficiency), the introduction of iron hulls and the introduction of the screw propeller, to make steam power capable of replacing sail.
Steam was introduced into naval service when it could improve an existing system, or provide a new method of carrying out essential business. It did not revolutionise the conduct of operations at sea overnight. Early steam engines were expensive, heavy, uneconomic and ill balanced. They were far from ideal power plants for wooden ships.
...
The 1840s witnessed a number of vital technological developments, of which the screw and the iron ship were the most obvious. Equally important breakthroughs in iron production, boiler design, bearings, lubricants, manufacturing and control systems were essential to the development of modern warships. Many of these technologies were drawn from other engineering sectors. By 1850 steam ships were effective and reliable enough to be used globally, while fuel supplies. engineering back-up and vital docking accommodation were spreading to meet the need. Although a few key commercial routes already carried steam shipping, this was a luxury market, catering for passengers and mail, not bulk produce.
…
[For a warship] it made sense to fit a square rig so the ship could cruise under sail, saving the coal for tactical demands, and emergencies.
The Sail and Steam Navy List, R. Winfield (2004), pg.17
edited 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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #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.
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
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #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.
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
add a comment |
You can't completely replace sail with coal until you are 100% sure that you are going to have access to coal everywhere you need to go.
This is basically an extension of Steve Bird's #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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not particularly nice in a mine or in a factory but outright dangerous on a ship. It took time before engines were reliable enough for ocean journeys.
2- Sufficient range. You can't bunker coal in the middle of the Atlantic. Ships need sufficient bunker capacity to cross an ocean and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and make a profit. When the first steam engines appeared, ships lacked the capacity for both. That also took time.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere. And again, it took time to develop a workable coaling network.
Developing all of the above took time.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
JosJos
9,27412246
9,27412246
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51571%2fwhy-did-it-take-so-long-to-abandon-sail-after-steamships-were-demonstrated%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
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