Why did it take so long to abandon sail after steamships were demonstrated?
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
add a 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
4
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♦
8 hours ago
2
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins 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
7 mins ago
add a 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 8 hours ago
JMS
asked 8 hours ago
JMSJMS
14.4k340112
14.4k340112
4
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♦
8 hours ago
2
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins 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
7 mins ago
add a comment |
4
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♦
8 hours ago
2
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins 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
7 mins ago
4
4
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♦
8 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♦
8 hours ago
2
2
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins 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
7 mins 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
7 mins ago
add a 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
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
7 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not good 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 and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and still make a profit.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere.
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
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
7 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 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
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
7 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 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 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Steve BirdSteve Bird
12.9k35566
12.9k35566
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
7 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Re #2, that's why Skysails en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails is selling kite/sails to assist motor-powered ships. Fuel costs.
– jamesqf
7 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 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
7 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
7 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
6 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
6 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 hours ago
And, you had to carry the fuel (coal), which reduced cargo space (without a hull redesign).
– GalacticCowboy
4 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
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
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 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
AllInOneAllInOne
1,7672720
1,7672720
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
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
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
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
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not good 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 and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and still make a profit.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not good 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 and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and still make a profit.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere.
Developing all of the above took time.
add a comment |
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not good 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 and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and still make a profit.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere.
Developing all of the above took time.
1- Reliability. The first steam engines were prone to breakdown. That's not good 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 and still be able to operate economically. In other words, ships had to be large enough to carry both coal, cargo and still make a profit.
3- Infrastructure. One harbor on each end of the Atlantic with enough bunker capacity is not enough. You need coaling stations everywhere.
Developing all of the above took time.
edited 15 mins ago
answered 40 mins ago
JosJos
9,21412246
9,21412246
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
4
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♦
8 hours ago
2
Most of the reasons are discussed in Historic England's Ships and Boats: 1840-1950
– sempaiscuba♦
8 hours ago
The answers can be boiled down to logistics.
– RonJohn
28 mins 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
7 mins ago