September 22, 1898] 



NATURE 



509 



cent, in number and have, in spite of the building of a certain 

 number of exceptionally large vessels, decreased 9 per cent, in 

 average size ; while steamers have increased 23 per cent, in 

 number and 16 per cent, in average size. The total sailing 

 tonnage has decreased in the same period by 24 per cent. , and 

 the steam tonnage has increased by 36 per cent. 



The problems thus confronting us, as results of the increased 

 size of all descriptions of over-sea steamships, require much con- 

 sideration from an engineering point of view, and are further 

 puzzling, and will continue to puzzle, our financial authorities, 

 without whose aid the engineer can do but little. 



We ask. Where is all this expansion of requirements to stop, 

 and how far are we justified in extending our view of the wants 

 of the future from the contemplation of the conditions of the 

 present and of what has occurred in the past ? This is un- 

 doubtedly a difficult question, and he would be a bold man who 

 thought that we had reached finality in the size of ships. 

 Bound up with this consideration are not merely matters of first 

 cost of the accommodation to be provided, but also of the 

 annual expenses in working and maintenance, not only of the 

 docks themselves, but in what is perhaps of more importance, 

 viz. the preservation of sufficiently deep and wide approaches 

 to them. 



Apart from length, depth, and beam, the midship cross section 

 of modern cargo ships has altered completely of late years, and 

 is now nearly as rectangular in shape as a packing-case, except- 

 ing only that at the bilges the sides and floor are joined by a 

 curve of small radius. The keel has almost disappeared, and 

 bilge keels are often added. The result of these alterations of 

 shape in the ordinary hulls of trading ships is that the sills and 

 sides of many locks and entrances are now unsuited to what 

 is wanted, and consequently their original power of accommo- 

 dating vessels is most seriously diminished. 



Until lately it was generally considered that locks 600 feet 

 long, 80 feet wide, and 26 feet deep were sufficiently capacious, 

 with some margin for future wants ; but I think we must now 

 go further in length and depth, and not improbably to some 

 extent in width. We find that at Liverpool the Dock Board 

 have ordered vestibule l)asins to act as locks 1 150 feet long and 

 520 feet wide, with entrances 100 feet wide and 32 feet deep ; 

 and somewhat similar dimensions were talked of for the entrance 

 lock of the recently proposed Windsor Dock at Penarth, which 

 was intended to be locx) feet long, 100 feet wide, and 34 feet 

 deep at neap tides. 



Again, apart from the question of locks and entrances, the 

 older docks themselves are beginning to be found too shallow 

 and too narrow for modern vessels. In docks which are deep 

 enough at spring tides and too shallow at neap tides, and which 

 are opened to the "tide of the day," much may be done to 

 improve the depth by systematic pumping, so as to keep the 

 surface always at the level of high water of spring tides. By 

 this expedient, large areas of old docks may be to that extent 

 modernised at the expense, perhaps, of new entrance locks and 

 the annual cost of pumping. This latter yearly outgoing is not 

 an important matter. At Liverpool and Birkenhead 230 acres 

 of nearly obsolete docks have been thus improved at a capital 

 cost of about 96,000/. for pumping machinery and an annual 

 expenditure of 6000/. I am executing a similar improvement 

 by pumping in one of the smaller docks on the Thames, and 

 contemplate it on a larger scale at an important dock there, and 

 also at Hull. 



The conditions of commerce now require also, in order to 

 realise the necessary economy of transport, the greatest des- 

 patch, for demurrage on the large and expensive modern steam 

 vessels is a most serious question. Thus there must now be no 

 waiting for spring tides, or, if possible, for rise of tide on the 

 day of arrival. Every steamer expects to discharge her cargo 

 on to the quay without waiting for much stacking, still less for 

 trucks ; and under modern conditions dock work must be got 

 through in one-third of the time which was considered proper 

 ten or twelve years ago. From these reasons larger quays and 

 warehouses, better railway approaches, improved sidings, and 

 better machinery are all necessities, as well as deeper water and 

 better approaches. 



These demands have come on us, as T have said, not so much 

 gradually as more or less suddenly, and the call for ihiproved 

 docks is general, and, in my opinion, it will be continuing. 



Liverpool last year undertook to spend nearly five millions 

 on such works, and we know of very many important projects 

 at other places. Taking the expenditure within the past decade, 



NO. 1508, VOL. 58] 



and adding to it the authorised expenditure at Liverpool, at the 

 great ports on the Bristol Channel, on the Thames, at South- 

 ampton, Hull, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Sunderland, the 

 Tyne and its neighbourhood, at Grangemouth, the Fife Ports, 

 at Glasgow, the Ayrshire Ports, the Cumberland and Lanca- 

 shire Ports, and so round the British coasts to Preston, I roughly 

 estimate an expenditure, either made during the past ten years 

 or contemplated, of from 35 to 40 millions. 



These are large figures, and we ask from whence will an 

 adequate revenue come ; for it is a more or less accepted fact 

 that docks by themselves do not produce more than a very 

 moderate return on their cost, though, of course, there may be 

 exceptions to every rule. Apart from the expenditure which 

 has been undertaken much remains to be done, and the source 

 of supply of the capital required is a highly important con- 

 sideration. I venture to think on this point that we should 

 learn to realise that under modern conditions docks should be 

 considered largely in the light of being railway stations for 

 goods and minerals and, in many cases, for passenger traffic. 

 Docks and quays, together with improved approaches from the 

 sea, are, in fact, the means of bringing traffic to the railways 

 (and, to a less degree, to the canals) of a country, and should 

 be looked upon as links in the chain of transport and inter- 

 communication. 



They are certainly as necessary adjuncts of a railway, at least 

 in our country and in respect of goods and minerals, as large 

 stations and depots are in all important towns. 



The older view of our Parliament was that docks and railways 

 should be in different hands ; but I much question whether this 

 idea should now commend itself It is difficult, as I have said, 

 for a dock enterprise standing alone to make any considerable 

 return on its cost, and though it is true that capital can b^ 

 found under guarantees of an already developed trade by somfe 

 of the great Dock Trusts, such as at Liverpool or Glasgow, thp 

 return is but a modest one, and not such as is likely to tempt 

 capitalists to new ventures in constructing or enlarging many Of 

 the docks which stand in need of improvements. 



On the other hand, a railway company which gets a fairly 

 long lead for the goods to and from a dock can afford to look at 

 the matter of expenditure on docks with some liberality. We 

 have conspicuous examples of great public benefit being afforded 

 at Southampton and at Hull, where the docks have lately passed 

 from the hands of financially weak companies dependent only 

 on dock dues, to the ownership of powerful railway companies. 

 Similarly, several of the north-eastern ports besides Hull — the 

 large docks at Grangemouth, Barry, Penarth, Garston, Fleet- 

 wood, and elsewhere^are further examples, amongst others, in 

 which the revenue of railway companies has been spent on dock 

 improvements with a spirit which would be otherwise unattain- 

 able. A dock also must necessarily be nowadays almost wholly 

 dependent for its efficient working on the best understanding 

 being maintained with the railway companies for the prompt 

 and adequate provision of land transport, so that in that point 

 of view also the two interests are one and should be recognised 

 as such. 



In the consideration of the advisability for concentration of 

 ownership, there remain only the questions of safeguards against 

 unfair treatment of competitive modes of transport, such as canal 

 and road traffic, and provision against any improper results of 

 monopoly of railway access. These, I think, can be providetl 

 by Parliamentary enactment, either by insisting on adequate 

 access under proper conditions for all within reach, or, in any 

 case, of inadequate facilities being accorded, by authorising the 

 construction of other docks in the hands of competing railway 

 companies or of other aggrieved parties, with in such cases rail- 

 way privileges. With these safeguards the public could be 

 efficiently protected, and, if this be so, I cannot but think that, 

 civleris paribus, the trading community will be better served by 

 docks directly connected with railway companies than by 

 separate existences and management. On the one hand, I 

 hope that those who administer the great railway undertakings 

 will realise this community of interest, and, on the other, that 

 Parliament will favour intimate financial relations between 

 docks and railways, instead of more or less systematically dis- 

 couraging such connection. This question is one which is 

 peculiarly interesting here at Bristol, where the docks are in the 

 hands of the Corporation, and where the railway companies 

 carry the traffic, which, but for the docks, would be largely 

 non-existent. 



(3) Leaving now the question of modern docks and shipping, 



