14 ON THE MAXIMUM DIMENSIONS OF SHIPS. 
It is not my purpose to attempt any detailed discussion of this branch 
of the subject, nor have I the experience which would enable me to do so. 
Speaking to naval architects, however, it may be permitted to make a brief 
statement which will illustrate the points last raised, and show the essential © 
differences between the Mauretania and Olympic, the first costs of which 
probably approximate. Let it be assumed that the two ships start at the 
same deep load-draught—34 feet. Allowing for differences in speed and 
engine-power the coal burned for propulsion on a Trans-Atlantic passage by 
the Olympic at 21 knots would be about 70 per cent. of that required for pro- 
pulsion by the Mauretania at 25 knots. For other purposes the daily coal 
consumption of the Olympic would rather exceed that of the Mauretania 
because of her larger size and greater number of passengers. The duration 
of the passage would be about 20 per cent. longer for the Olympic and on 
this basis the dead-weight cargo capacity of the Olympic at the load draught 
assumed for both ships would probably exceed that of the Mauretania 
(roughly) by 10,000 tons. ‘This is obviously a potential source of larger 
earnings, provided cargoes can be secured and dealt with in port without 
objectionably long detention. It may be doubted whether this full cargo 
capacity would be frequently utilized, even coming eastward, and going 
westward there would be no prospect of its utilization under the conditions 
of actual Trans-Atlantic service. If not so utilized the vessel could of course 
be worked at lighter draught, or could carry coal from England for the 
voyage out and home, or be otherwise dealt with. On the other hand the 
under-water form would always remain that which was selected as appro- 
priate to the carriage of a large dead-weight; and if the provision made for 
cargo had been less it would have been possible to produce a vessel of smaller 
displacement and less cost having the same speed, with reduced working 
expenses and equal passenger accommodation. ‘These remarks are made in 
no spirit of criticism. Those who were responsible for the construction of 
the Olympic are undoubtedly masters of all details of shipping and ship 
management, while I am only an outsider in mercantile affairs and neces- 
sarily regard the problem from the point of view of a naval architect. Even 
that point of view should not be ignored, however, and it will have an influ- 
ence on the future development of mercantile steamships. 
XIII. For warships other considerations than those of first cost and 
cost of maintenance must determine the maximum dimensions which should 
be adopted. Their case is, therefore, distinct from that of merchant ships 
and must be considered on its merits. Advocates of further increase in size 
and cost of warships take a different view and argue that because a few 
mercantile steamships have reached dimensions far in excess of those attained 
