UNSINKABLE SHIPS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6936, 9 February 1884, Page 6

UNSINKABLE SHIPS.

: 'LETTER FROM! SIR B. J. REED. '- [BY TELEGRAPH.—PBESS ASSOCIATION.] ''.''"' '.'.; -;,'■ . ' Wellington, Friday. The following is the reply of Sir E. J. Reed, M.P., to a letter addressed to him by Sir :F. JD. Bell on the subject of unsinkable ships :—" Westminster, November 20th, 1883. Absence from England has prevented ma from acknowledging earlier your favour, of the 13th inst.L which I find to be most interesting. I have read through the pamphlet on Mr.' Isbister'a sectional ship; :and. although I do not ; fully under'stand his details, I hold them to be correct enough so, far as I do understand them, .The.! competition between 'shipowners, has. vastly more to do with the, sinkability of. ships as now , built than any difficulty in designing and building unsinkable, ships, and I am quite ready 'fq stake any professional reputation which I have upon the perfect practicability of designing and building a New Zealand line of steamers which should he exempt from loss ~6n ocean, by collision or-, stress of jwesithe?,;; I am therefore of opinion, thaJb the recommendation of the joint committee of ,both Houses of Parliament was not only reasonable, but, if acted upon, would confer great advantages upon the colonial world, for any such example of adoption of unsinkable ships wouldnecessarily be followed in the future." : , . .-.•■ : In a subsequent'letter. Sit. F.D. Bell forwarded to Sir E. J. Reed the drawings and details of Mr.'lsbister J s eoherne. He says the drawings are very•ingenious, but the designer is not sufficiently acquainted with ,the construction of modern iron and ateel merchant ships. He doubts if the number of transversa watertight bulkheads described in the drawing are sufficient, and what is known as a collision bulkhead should certainly be introduced. With regard to the details of construction he is of opinion that there is a deal of superfluous material and work used which adds both unnecessary weight and cost to the vessel. Sir E. J. Reed considers, the double bottom system preferable, as it is of great service both for using water ballaet and for further' subdividing the bottom into watertight compartments, and it also adds largely to the safety of the vessel' in the event of stranding, etc. After going into long details as to transverse frames and floors, he states that in Mr. Isbiater's soheme there appears to be great want of longitudinal strength which should be obtained by means of side kelsons, striDgers,' etc, which should run continuously through the watertight transverse bulkhead, and watertightneas made complete by means of collars,' angle irons, etc In conclusion he says : "In short, it appears to me that Mr. labister has set before himself some objects which are altogether distinct from- unsinkabili ty and which in bo far as they add weight which is not necessary, are of course not adverse to unsicktibility. Ido not understand why it is so. lam strongly of opinion that no such radical change in construction of iron and steel ships as Mr. lebister proposes is at all necessary or . desirable as a means of making a ship unsinkable. All that is needed is to greatly increase the amount of • subdivisions in the ordinary type of ships (with some modification of form), great judgment and carebeing exercised in order to secure such divisions without undue, interference with pasaenger and cargo accommodation,"