Title: John Penn and Son of Greenwich , makers of the Xantho engine.

Transcription

1 Title: John Penn and Son of Greenwich , makers of the Xantho engine. Richard Hartree, BA, CEng, FIMMM, Association for Industrial Archaeology. SUMMARY: A brief history of a three generational family business which became a leading marine engineering firm. Significant developments were: a new design of oscillating engine for river and coastal paddle steamers, the patented trunk engine for screw auxiliary drive in large and small warships and the patented wood propeller shaft stern bearing. The firm supplied many engines to the Royal Navy including nearly 100 for Crimean War gunboats; one of these engines was later installed in Xantho. 1. THE LOCATION. Today Greenwich, although several kilometres. downstream on the Thames, seems to be part of London. This came about after the coning of the railways in the middle 1800s. At the start of the story there was open country between Greenwich and London and the journey was made on foot, by horse or by boat. London was the greatest port and city of the western world. It had long been a centre for shipbuilding and many other industries. The firm s main works was located some two kilometres from the river at the junction of Blackheath Road [the old Dover Road] and Lewisham Road; the site is now occupied by a DIY store. There was also a site on the river, upstream from Deptford creek which was the boiler works; it is deserted and waiting development. Table 1. Penn/Hartree Family Tree. 2. THE FAMILY. 1 The three generations of the family involved in the business are shown in Table 1; also the author s descent from the Penn family. John Penn I was born near Taunton in Somerset in He was apprenticed as a millwright at Bridgewater and, after completion of his apprenticeship, went to Bristol and then on to London where he arrived in In 1799 he established his own agricultural engineering and millwright business at Greenwich on the site where the firm remained for over one hundred years. By the early 1820s it was one of the six largest engineering shops in the London area. 2 John Penn II was apprenticed in the firm and stayed until his retirement in He made it into a very reputable marine engineering business and became an important figure in the engineering profession; twice being president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and becoming a FRS. He was taken into partnership by his father about 1830 and became managing partner after his father s death in His sister Charlotte married William Hartree II in 1839.

2 William II had completed an apprenticeship as a stationer in the City and was trained in the firm and became a partner. In the 1840s and 50s he was manager of the Greenwich works. John II s cousin Thomas was apprenticed in the firm and became engineer, foreman and manager of the Deptford boiler works which were established I the early 1840s. John Matthew was a local recruit who trained in the firm, became chief designer and a partner in He married William Hartree s sister Maria. John II s elder sons, John III and William, were trained in the firm, became partners in 1872 and took over the management from 1875 when their father retired. They remained in charge, with John II as Chairman, until the sale of the business to Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding in William became a member of the board of Thames Ironworks. 3. MARINE ENGINEERING HIGHLIGHTS. The first steamer to appear on the Thames was the Clyde built Margery in Others quickly followed and by 1820 there were over twenty. A paddle steamer boom had started. 3.1 Ipswich and Suffolk. 3 The firm s first important venture into marine engineering was in This was before John II s twenty-first birthday so, although he almost certainly made a major technical input, it was his father s contract. The Ipswich Steam Navigation Company was founded by a group of Ipswich businessmen to provide a service to London with a stop at Harwich. In January 1825 two ships, Ipswich and Suffolk, were ordered from a local shipbuilder Bayley and Ridley. In April a contract was placed with John Penn for the boilers, engines and paddle wheels with delivery to be in July and September and severe penalties for late delivery if the ships hulls were on time. It appears that the plan was to start the service in the summer of The contract value for Penn was There were two side-lever engines for each ship; operating pressure was 35kNm -2 (5psi). Things did not go according to plan. There were no services in One ship went into service in the following April and the other in September. In 1827 only one was in service. In 1828 both ships were laidup and in 1829 they were sold for Neither Penn nor Bayley and Ridley had been paid in full. Bayley and Ridley went bankrupt. Penn survived and, after the final winding-up of Ipswich Steam Navigation Company, John Penn I sued the original directors personally for The case went to arbitration and Penn was awarded s. The firm s first venture into marine engineering was a business disaster. Figure 1. Ipswich. This happened at the time when marine steam was a new technology. Best practices for the design of the ship and engines, for their manufacture and the operation of the vessel were not well established. It was a risky new technology business and there must have been many such failures. 3.2 The Oscillating Engine. The firm s next significant marine engineering contract was in , to supply engines for seven river steamers for service between Richmond and Westminster. It was for these that John Penn II introduced his design of oscillating engine. The cylinders of an oscillating engine rock on trunnions and the piston rod is connected directly to the crank, thus avoiding the need for a beam or a guided crosshead and separate connecting rod. Figure 2. Oscillating Engine diagram. It was not a new idea but no satisfactory design had yet been developed. John Penn II made several important improvements. In all oscillating engines the steam inlet and outlet were through the trunnions which housed the

3 valves. He put conventional D valve chests on the sides of the cylinders and was able to bring the cylinders closer together and achieve more efficient valve operation. He also redesigned the framing using light cast iron members for the compressive and light wrought iron bars for the tensile loads. The result was a lighter, more compact an more powerful engine. These changes are shown in Fig 3. The top picture is a Maudslay engine of 1827, the middle is a Penn engine of The lower picture is a Maudslay engine of 1847: the similarity with Penn s design is apparent. His became the standard design for oscillating engines. 1575x1575mm (62x62in) operating at 83kNm -2 (12psi), was installed and met all performance requirements. Soon after there were orders for two paddle frigate conversions, HMS Firebrand and HMS Retribution: they were the first of many. 5 The firm supplied oscillating engines based on these design concepts through to the 1890s. At a Newcomen Society meeting in 1922 Rear-Admiral Judd, who had joined the navy in 1866, said Penn s oscillating engine had always been my favourite The Trunk Engine. The late 1830s and early 1840s saw the first uses of the screw propeller rather than paddles to drive the ship through the water. For naval ships paddles were very unsatisfactory because of their exposure to enemy fire and they occupied so much of the ship s broadside. The adoption of propeller drive required the development of new engine designs which would operate at higher speed for direct drive on the propeller shaft and be compact so they could be located below the line-offire. John Penn II again turned to an old design concept, the trunk engine, which allowed the piston rod to be connected directly to the crank but had never been successfully developed. In 1845 a patent was taken out in the names of the partners, John Penn, William Hartree and John Matthew. Immediately there were orders for screw auxiliary conversions of frigates and other Royal Navy ships. Figure 3. Three oscillating engine models. The early engines had cylinder diameter and stroke of 560x560mm (22x22in) and operated at 140kNm -2 (20psi). John Penn II s reputation was given a great boost in 1843 by his new engine for the Admiralty yacht Black Prince. She had an engine by Boulton & Watt and when the Admiralty approached them for a more powerful engine they said it would be too heavy and it would be better to order a new vessel. John Penn II heard of this and made an unsolicited offer to supply an oscillating engine with twice the power, the same weight and smaller size than the existing engine. If it did not give satisfaction he would remove it and replace the original. Sir John Rennie encouraged the Admiralty to accept Penn s offer. 4 The Penn engine, Figure 4. Trunk engine diagram. In 1851 the firm supplied trunk engines for the first warship designed as a screw auxiliary, HMS Agamemnon; in 1861 for the first ironclad HMS Warrior; and in 1871 for the first mastless warship, the twin screw and engine HMS Devastation. These were three notable firsts; for Penn trunk engines. Their cylinder diameter and stroke ranged from mm x mm (71-104in x 42-48in) and operating pressures kNm -2 (20-30psi).

4 accordance with Whitworth standards 9 helped in quality control and greatly simplified all maintenance work in service. This was not mass production based on interchangeable parts but was a significant feat of manufacturing management for which Maudslay and Penn had responsibility. Penn s engines were noncondensing, twin and single cylinder small trunk engines operating at 415kNm -2 (60psi) and using sea water; this pressure was quite revolutionary at the time. They were simple, cheap to build and not expected to give a long service life. It was one of these that was fitted in Xantho. Figure 5. Replica trunk engine, HMS Warrior. In 1858 an Admiralty committee recommended that the Penn trunk engine was the preferred choice where great power was needed 6 ; almost all were for naval use. 3.4 Crimean War Gunboats. This war between Russia and the allies Turkey, The Kingdom of Sardinia, France and Britain required fleets to be active in both the Baltic and the Black Sea. In the Baltic to blockade the Russian fleet in Kronstadt and be a threat to St Petersburg and in the Black Sea to contain the Russian fleet in Sebastopol and support the landing of troops on fortified coasts. Both fleets needed to be effective against coastal fortifications. The broadside warship presented a large target to land based artillery and the Admiralty chose to use small, manoeuvrable gunboats for this duty. Figure 7. Xantho engine. This small two cylinder trunk engine has cylinder dimensions of 533mm (21in) diameter and 305mm (12in) stroke. The trunk diameter is 280mm (11in). Many of the gunboats were made from green timber, were broken up and the engines scrapped or sold. It is known that twenty four of these engines were fitted in Beacon Class gunboats in The cylinder dimensions make it clear that the Xantho engine came from one of the thirteen Gleaner, Dapper or Albacore Class gunboats which might have survived to be available in Wartime Profits and the Partners. Figure 6. Gunboat Magnet. Nearly two hundred gunboats were built inn The wooden hulls could be built in many dockyards but the supply of engines was entrusted to Maudslay Son & Field and John Penn and Son in equal shares. The manufacturing work was beyond their capacity when added to the wartime demands for conversions and new vessels. Hence much of the work was contracted out to other smaller engineering shops. The Admiralty s insistence that the work must be in The total value of Penn s work for the Admiralty in was ; for the gunboats and for the conversions and new vessels. This must have been profitable business and good for the partners who took the opportunity to improve their lifestyles. John Penn II purchased a fifty-five acre estate on the south side of Blackheath with the house Lee Place which he had rebuilt as an abode fit for a merchant prince and renamed The Cedars. William Hartree bought Morden Hill House just off the Lewisham road and added an observatory and new library. John Matthew bought the Burford Lodge estate near Dorking. They did well.

5 Figure 9. Lignum Vitae bearing, from Royal Charter. Figure 8. Lee Place (upper) and The Cedars. 3.6 The Screw Propeller Stern Bearing Problem. With the materials and techniques available at the time it was not possible to seal this bearing and prevent the ingress of water. When the screw was in use water washed any lubricant out of the bearing, which then ran metal on metal and wore rapidly. The consequent vibrations shook the hull and caused many leaks. Sometimes the ship had to be beached. The result was that screw propeller drive could not be used for sustained periods of cruising and had limited usefulness, especially for commercial ships. John Penn II was keenly aware of this problem and setup a test rig at the Greenwich works to evaluate a variety of bearing materials for underwater performance. The tests were carried out by Francis Petit Smith. All varieties of wood out-performed all metals; lignum vitae performed best. In 1854, on the basis of these tests, John Penn II took out a patent for a wood, propeller-shaft stern bearing. The wood inserts were dovetailed into the bronze bearing bush. (Fig 9). This bush came from the Royal Charter and had served for km ( miles) on the Australia run. She was wrecked of the coast of Anglesey in It was known as the Golden Wreck because of the golddiggers wealth which was washed ashore. John Penn II granted licences to others to make the bearings at a royalty of 2/6d per hp on the shaft. In 1866 he won a patent case against party who claimed the patent was invalid and had refused to pay. This bearing was essential for the growth of screw propulsion and hence of steam navigation. Wood bearings continued to be fitted until recently and are still in use. Unfortunately Penn s patent had expired before their use became widespread. 4. ENGINES MADE BY THE FIRM. Table 2 (following page) Shows, by decade, the numbers of engines of various types which were built for naval and commercial ships from 1824 to The data includes at least three-quarters of the firm s output. It was in the 1840s that Penn s became established as a major marine engine manufacturer and secured its position as a supplier to the Royal Navy. The1850s saw the great increase brought about by the Crimean War. Production remained strong in the 1860s but started to fall in the 1870s even though compound engines had entered the product range. Business collapsed in the 1880s; the Works had to close at times. In 1889 the partnership was converted into a private limited company, which was sensible under the circumstances. The Naval Defence Act of 1889 gave rise to some increase in orders, including triple expansion engines operating at 1035kNm -2 (150psi).in the 1890s, but not enough to make the firm viable. In 1899 the company was sold to Thames Ironworks and Shipbuilding Ltd. Operating as the engineering division the ex-penn works maintained their technical excellence and built triple expansion engines for five and Parsons turbines for three large ships of the Royal Navy. The last was HMS Thunderer.. Thames Ironworks, Shipbuilding and Engineering were not cost competitive with the northern yards and went into receivership in 1911.

6 Table 2. Penn Engined Ships 5. CONCLUSIONS, CAUSES OF FAILURE. From the 1860s there were three lines of technological Development which combined to render the firm uncompetitive. One was the development of the compound engine which, with its lower coal consumption, enabled steam to compete with sail in the cargo trade. This opened up a huge market for marine steam engines which grew even further with the development of the triple expansion engine. Another was the development of steel-making processes which made low cost steel available for use in place of wrought iron for shipbuilding and engineering. This changed the economics of shipbuilding and helped reduce the costs of new steam-driven cargo ships. The lower cost northern yards were better placed than those on the Thames to exploit these developments in this growing market. The third was the development of Mushet tool steels which enabled higher machining rates but required more powerful, rigid and expensive machine tools. Firms building facilities to meet a growing market could easily justify the investment. Old established businesses which saw the justification largely in terms of direct cost savings could not justify it. The Thameside firms had higher costs and unsuitable locations and layouts compared to those in the north and were not active in the cargo market. They could not exploit the opportunity and so faded away. It is interesting that Thorneycroft and Yarrow, two Thameside firms which specialised in high speed vessels, relocated and survived. I suggest they had strategic visions for their businesses which enabled them to justify their moves. The Penn s business vision seems to have been limited to the operation of their works and the employment of their men ; relocation was an option they could not contemplate. 6. JOHN PENN TODAY. To be seen:- 1. The Xantho engine in Fremantle. It is the only remaining Penn trunk engine. 2. The replica trunk engine in HMS Warrior at Portsmouth. 3. An 1879 oscillating engine at the Southampton Maritime Museum. 4. An 1841 oscillating engine operating in the paddle steamer Diesbar on the river Elbe at Dresden. It is the only operating Penn engine. 5. Various models in the National Science Museum, London. 6. The Penn Almshouses in South Street, Greenwich,. built in 1884 in memory of John Penn II.

7 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Permission to use illustrations:- Figure 1. The Malthouse Press. Figure 3 and 9. National Science Museum, London. author s photographs. Figure 5. The Warrior Preservation Trust, Portsmouth. author s photograph. Figure 6. The National Maritime Museum, Greenwich. Figure 7. The West Australia Maritime Museum, Fremantle 8. REFERENCES. 1 Penn and Hartree family records and The Kentish Mercury, 28 Sep and 2 Oct Cantrell J and Cookson G, Henry Maudslay and the Pioneers of the Machine Age. Tempus, Stroud. 3 Moffat H, Ipswich Ships and Shipyards, Malthouse Press, Ipswich. Also National Science Museum Library ARCH FIELD 1/2, 1/ Rennie Sir J, Autobiography. E&FN Spon. London. 5 Lyon D and Winfield R, The Sail and Steam Navy List. All the Ships of the Royal Navy Chatham, London. 6 Transactions of the Newcomen Society, Vol 2, p British patent no Oram Sir H J, Fifty Years Changes in British Warship Machinery. Proceedings of the Institution of Naval Architects, 5 Jul 1911, p Atkinson N, Sir Joseph Whitworth. Sutton, Stroud. 10 as British patent no.2114, Hayward s Patent Cases , Vol 8 pp