By Captain ANTHONY S. THOMSON, C.B., Elder Brother of Trinity House, Commander B.N.B.

Reprinted from the " Journal of the Royal United Service Institution," by permission.

(Continued From p. 575, February number of THE LIFE-BOAT JOURNAL.) Stockless Anchors.—Stockless anchors j of modern, type were first introduced • about the year 1893, when cast steel began to be available for their manufacture. They are all modifications, more or less, of Martin's self-canting principle, though differing considerably in con- struction and detail. The shank, which is generally made light and taper, serves merely as a lever for tripping and for housing the anchor. The cross-bead carrying the arms and canting pieces is a solid casting, so that these anchors consist practically of two principal parts.

The shank is secured to the head in different ways according to the par- ticular make of the anchor. Sometimes, as in the case of Byers' anchor, a long pin or bolt is employed going right through the head and riveted outside at the two ends. In other patents short pivot lugs are cast on the crown end of the shank, which is then entered through the crown from the back and the pivots secured in their place by keep bolts through the head. This is the method adopted in Hall's anchors. In the " Britannia " anchor the crown end of the shank is fastened to a ball which works in a ball socket in the head, the shank being entered from the back and kept in place by plate and cotter. In all cases the play or canting angle of shank is limited to about 90°, giving the blades an opening of 45° either way. The blades, which are necessarily straight in the vertical plane, generally project at right angles from the cross-head or parallel to the shank, but in some patterns they form a con- tinuous curve in the plane of the cross- head. Perhaps the most important differences in the various anchors are to be found in the means employed to ensure the arms canting downwards in order to bite when a pull is brought on the anchor. In some patterns the head almost approaches the mushroom form and so makes the addition of tripping pieces of minor importance; but in other cross-heads, designed to offer as little resistance as possible to penetration, large canting pieces or trips are pro- vided. These are placed by some makers in the centre of the crown and by others at the outer ends of the cross-head at the back of the arms. The latter principle seems the better of the two, for when a central trip is employed there is a tendency for the anchor head to balance on it and roll, especially on hard ground.

It is a pity that tripping pieces are necessary at all, because they tend to lessen penetration and do not always behave exactly as they ought in other ways. One of the causes of failure of stockless anchors to hold in certain bottoms may be traced to the tripping pieces. The tendency for a stockless anchor is to fall on. the bottom with blades up, and supposing the head to sink at first deeply into soft ground, the effect of the trips may sometimes be to retain the blades in this useless position.

Such, I believe, is the opinion of Mr. Lennox, of the well-known firm of Messrs. Brown and Lennox.

There are to-day many patented stockless anchors in more or less general use, each of which is supposed to possess its own special merits. The only one of which I have had practical experience is the Wasteneys-Smith, one of the earliest cast-steel anchors. When in command of telegraph cable-ships I had opportunities for thoroughly testing this anchor, during a series of voyages com- mencing in 1884, with very good results, its performance comparing favourably with that of a Rodger's anchor of about equal weight. The anchor is, in my opinion, well designed, the arms and cross-head offering little resistance to penetration, while the horns, which serve as trips or canting pieces, are wide apart, so as to effectively steady the anchor and prevent rolling. The shank is connected to the head by a short strong pin, easily accessible. I am in- formed by the makers that upwards of 4,000 of these anchors are now in use, some up to 7 tons weight now being made for the Cunard liners and for mooring purposes in the Mersey. I was interested to find this anchor gave an excellent account of itself during the trials carried out by the Admiralty at Spithead, in March, 1900, with the object of testing the holding power and efficiency of stock- less anchors. In these trials stockless anchors by different makers were sepa- rately let go from H.M.S. Hero in eight fathoms, mud bottom. Sixty fathoms of chain cable were veered away in each case, the ship's engines being then worked astern and power gradually increased to endeavour to break out or drag the anchors. Tinder these circum- stances, one or two of the anchors refused to budge, even when the engines worked at 80 revolutions, developing upwards of 3,000-H.P., the utmost available.

These trials, though of a very thorough and practical nature, can scarcely be taken as conclusive for comparisons of the different anchors, yet they serve to prove the value and reliability of stock- less anchors of approved construction.

As a result of these and further trials, the Admiralty have adopted hawse- stowing anchors for some of their largest ships.

Hawse-Stowing Anchors.—For a long time stockless anchors were generally distrusted by seamen, and to this day the question of their holding power forms an ever-present subject of controversy.

The fact that they are now usually sup- plied to new vessels is due, in a measure, to their undoubted merit; but also, in.

a much greater degree, to the modern hawse-stowing arrangement which the abolition of the stock has made possible.

Indeed the advantages of being able to heave the anchor right up into a specially contrived hawse pipe are so manifest, that the adoption of this system has practically settled a vexed question, and has brought stockless anchors into general use much more quickly than would other- wise have been the case.

To Messrs. G. Tyzack, of South Shields, belongs the credit of having originated the hawse-stowing system.

In the year 1884 a new steamship, the Albarto of 3,300 tons dead weight, was fitted with one of their single-fluked anchors heaving up into a specially shaped wrought-iron hawse pipe. This anchor was practically the same as the single-fluked stocked anchor brought out by Messrs. Tyzack in 1877, but to enable it to stow in the hawse the stock was now shifted from the ring end of the shaft to the crown, passing through the forked shank and forming the pivot on which the single arm worked. In principle this anchor, suggesting a cross- bow in appearance, was thoroughly good, but the width of forked shank was in- convenient, necessitating a funnel-shaped hawse pipe of'unusually large diameter at the lower end, up which the sea could .rush with great violence. This is perhaps the reason the self-housing system was not very generally appreciated until the introduction of cast-steel anchors with light shanks which could be hove up into hawse pipes of ordinary form and diameter. Messrs. Tyzack have been kind enough to inform me that the first experiment of heaving the Albano's anchor up into the hawse pipe was con- ducted in Mr. Laing's graving-dock at Deptford, Sunderland, in February, 1884, in the presence of a large number of ship-builders, ship-owners, marine superintendents, and other interested persons. They also sent a copy of a certificate signed by the master of the Albano, at the expiration of a voyage to Calcutta and other ports, in which he expresses entire satisfaction with the holding power and general working qualities of the anchor. The hawse- stowing system is now rapidly becoming universal, and has been adopted not only for the largest battle-ships, but also in small sailing coasting vessels.

There is some question as to the best angle for the hawse pipes, to which Messrs. Byers, the -well-known makers of the " Reliance " anchor, have drawn my attention. They are of opinion that the angle should be a certain com- promise between what is good for the chain and what is most convenient for working the anchor. On thinking the matter over, I have come to the con- clusion that the anchor is the chief thing to be studied, and that the prac- tice in the Navy of making the pipe fairly steep is right. Certainly it would seem that the angle with the vertical should be always considerably less than 40°. Under ordinary circumstances the chain will hang between the pipe and the water at a much steeper angle, and even when the cable tautens out, the nip against the upper lip of the pipe will never be so serious as is the side nip when the vessel has a sheer or when she is riding ahead of her anchor.

Before leaving the hawse-stowing system, I must mention a practical difficulty of some importance which experience at the Admiralty Court has shown to exist in modern tramp steamers with stockless anchors. As a general rule such vessels are not now fitted with cranes or with any appli- ances for getting out or lifting in anchors over the bows. The result is that in case of breakdown or other mishap necessitating their being taken in tow, they are unable to use the hawse-pipe for towing purposes unless they abandon an anchor and sometimes also a length of chain cable. Where anchor cranes are not provided, this difficulty would be best met by provid- ing a third hawse pipe specially for towing and mooring purposes. For some years Messrs. Byers have provided their anchors with one or with three heavy links between the anchor shackle and the end or bending shackle. This arrangement seems a very good one. It causes the bending shackle to enter and leave the hawse pipe on the same cant as the anchor shackle, thus avoiding the risk of the latter straining or opening out, the additional links also bringing the end shackle above and clear of the pipe, so that, if necessary, the anchor when stowed can be slipped without sacrificing chain. These anchor links have now to be proved to the breaking strain of the cable for which they are intended. Owing, presumably, to the difficulty anticipated in dealing with heavy anchors over the bows, when specially adapted gear is no longer pro- vided, and in order to have a third anchor ready at all times, H.M.S. Albemarle, of 15,000 tons, and other war-vessels now building, have two hawse pipes on the starboard bow and one on the port bow, for stockless anchors. Were we not assured that the matter must have been carefully considered, and that there is a good reason for it, this lop-sided arrangement would seem somewhat open to criticism, because a spare hawse pipe is at times very convenient for mooring and towing purposes and also when clearing hawse.

Sometimes when unmooring ship, both anchors come up together in a terrible jumble, and at such times the absence of the ordinary anchor davit and gear may be severely felt. The Albemarle's stockless anchors are of 115 cwt. each.

After all, in regard to anchors of whatever form or type, by far the most important considerations are weight and strength. We propose to deal with the latter quality first, as being the most easily dismissed.

Strength of Anchors.—A rough rule is that the safe working load of an anchor should about equal the resistance of the ship at a speed through the water of 12 knots. In order that we may put this to a practical test, H.M.S. Grey- hound, of 1,157 tons displacement, re- quired a pull of 9 tons to tow her at the speed mentioned. The testing or proof strain is generally taken at twice the working load, and the breaking strain at about six times. The anchor of such a- vessel as the Greyhound, there- fore, should be proved to about 18 tons, and should presumably withstand a strain of nearly 54 tons. According to Lloyd's Register Rules, the proof strain for the anchor of a merchant steamship of similar tonnage should be 23 tons, and the breaking strain of her chain cables about 61 tons. Since the above was written, Mr. R. Denny, of the firm of Denny Brothers, Dumbarton, has most kindly furnished me with a schedule of some 30 vessels of various types, giv- ing the weight of best bower anchor and safe working load by Lloyd's test, also the block co-efficients of the vessels at load draught, and their calculated resistance at 12 knots. From this table it appears that the rough rule referred to is approximately correct only in the case of full-built ships whose block co-efficients are between '75 and '80.

In almost every case the proof strain is in excess of the resistance at 12 knots ; indeed in the case of yachts and very fine vessels the resistance at 12 knots is only about half the strain to which the anchors are proved. Most stockless anchors have an advantage in strength over anchors of ordinary form, very rarely breaking under steady strain and fair conditions.

Weight of Anchors.—In the days of wooden vessels the rough rule was 1 cwt. for every 20 tons of a merchant- ship's burthen, and in the Royal Navy 1 cwt. to every gun. Up to the begin- ning of the seventeenth century the largest anchors in use must have been very light, for we read in "Derrick's Memoirs of the Royal Navy" that the capstan for weighing anchors was first invented in 1610. In 1637, however, the Sovereign of the Seas, a vessel of over 1,600 tons burthen, carried eleven anchors of about 2 tons each. From information kindly afforded by the builders, I am able to say that the Celtic, the largest vessel now afloat, is supplied with three Hall's hawse-stowing bowers, each weighing 7| tons. It appears that in 1859 the Great Eastern was exclusively supplied with Trotman's anchors not much exceed- ing 5 tons in weight, exclusive of stock. It was, of course, claimed for Trotman's anchors that a saving of weight might be effected without sacrifice of holding power; but this is scarcely consistent with modern views, weight and strength being practically synonymous. Before the advent of steam, the labour of raising and securing heavy anchors was great; lighter anchors, therefore, were used on ordinary occasions, the heavier anchors being reserved for use during bad weather and in exceptional circum- stances. Anchors of varying weight and size were known as " bowers," " best bowers," and " sheet anchors," although it seems that about the year 1800 "bower" and "sheet" anchor were interchangeable terms. Nowadays the working or bower anchors are generally the heaviest carried, yet there is reason to suppose they are in many instances too light to ensure safety at critical times. This is perhaps a natural outcome of steam propulsion, a steamship being much less dependent on her anchors for safety than a sailing vessel. For instance, in 1858 Lloyd's advised 54-cwt. anchors for 2,000-ton vessels, but in 1804 this weight sufficed for steamships of 6,000 tons under the Underwriters' Registry. In the Navy 5-ton bowers were supplied to all vessels over 3,500 tons displacement, yet to-day a merchant-vessel displacing 10,000 tons may have anchors of under 3 tons weight. It is true the largest men-of- war until quite recently carried nothing heavier than 5 tons; and the difference in the conditions affecting the two Services must be taken into consider- ation. While the tendency of modern practice is in the direction of lighter anchors of improved construction, with chain cables the tendency is rather the other way. Whether it be that experience has shown chain cables to be less trustworthy than they were formerly considered, or whether a heavier is required to supplement the lighter anchor, certainly the cables are heavier in proportion to size of vessel than they used to be. The Great Eastern, for instance, with her 5-ton Trotman anchors, ex-stock, equivalent perhaps in holding power to 7-ton stockless of the present day, had only 2| chain; whilst under Lloyd's Register Rules the size of chain corresponding to 7-ton anchors is 3 g. The Celtic can certainly be no heavier on her anchors than was the Great Eastern, yet the former vessel's cables are 3f inch.

However desirable increase of weight may be for chain cables, it is, in the writer's opinion, still more important in the case of anchors. Under ordinary circumstances, it is true, a long length of heavy chain cable will almost hold the ship of itself, and in deep water the catenary of a heavy chain acts very beneficially in preventing jerking or irregular strains which might affect the hold of the anchor. It is, however, under extraordinary conditions that real danger of dragging the anchor arises; times during which vessels will tauten out their cables like bars, especially in shallow water. Then it is that all depends upon the anchor ; if it will not hold, of what avail the weight and strength of the cable ? Tramp Steamers in Ballast Dragging their Anchors.—I remember some few years ago, a large tramp steamer, flying light, coming into Portland, during a moderate gale from W.N.W. She let go two anchors, and paid out apparently plenty of cable, yet during the night she dragged and sheered all about the harbour, and in the morning collided with the vessel in which I was then serving. We were lying to a single anchor and 45 fathoms of cable quite comfortably. This tramp carried her hawse pipes close up to the level of the forecastle, and consequently showed a long length of taut cable above and out of the water. The impression this pro- duced was an unfavourable one; yet it is difficult to see what bad results can be directly traceable to the hawse pipes being so far above the water—a moral, applicable to vessels in light trim, we may certainly deduce. It is, that in such cases, the old rule applicable in light weather, to pay out chain equal to at least three times the depth of water, requires modification. It should be three times the distance from hawse to bottom. Thus for a vessel, such as the one described, having her hawse 30 feet above the water, anchoring in 7 fathoms, the minimum scope of chain should be three- times 7 -f 5, or 26 fathoms, rather than 21 fathoms. The ship I have referred to afterwards put into Plymouth, again taking charge of the harbour and doing further damage, to other vessels. Similar instances must be familiar to many of those present, and they naturally raise a doubt whether the anchors carried by large tramp steamships are of sufficient weight to ensure safety under all the varying conditions of their employment.

The weights given in Lloyd's Rules for vessels of varying size are well under- stood to be the minimum weights re- quired; yet in practice, they represent the maximum it is in most cases thought necessary to provide. This is a dis- advantage for which it is not easy to find a remedy; but it seems to me worthy of serious consideration by Lloyd's and kindred institutions,whether the rules governing the weights of anchors, now in force, are sufficient to meet the circumstances of modern navi- gation, and whether some revision should not be effected in the general interests of shipping. When the present minimum weights were decided on, it could scarcely have been anticipated that steamships would be sent on long voyages in exceedingly light trim, which has of late become the rule rather than the exception. Another matter which seems difficult to justify from a strictly nautical point of view, is the reduction of weight permitted by the Rules in the case of spare, anchors and second bowers.

If the anchor, which is somewhat heavier than the required minimum, is lost or injured, it seems scarcely right to replace it with an anchor of less than the minimum weight. A vessel may, in fact, during a whole voyage have to depend on anchors which are of less weight than the minimum applicable in her case. This arrangement is probably a relic of the practice prevailing, as already pointed out, before the days of steam windlasses. It would seem to accord better with modern ideas and seamanship, to carry bower anchors, all of the same weight and holding power.

Recent Developments of Stockless Anchors.—Quite recently a number of anchors have been patented, presenting very unusual features both in design and in construction. In one case, the shank is connected to the head by a ball and socket arrangement, whilst the stock also is loose and free to revolve on the shank. In another instance there is a sort of parallel motion, which, how- ever desirable, necessitates a number of weak points at the pivots. Again, we have an anchor in which the shank takes the form of a frame enclosing the one arm, which is, so to speak, all blade or fluke. In forming an opinion on the merits of anchors in general, it may be useful to remember that a pickaxe holds better than a rake and is stronger.

Rodgers' anchor exemplifies the pickaxe principle, and possibly some of the modern stockless anchors verge on the rake principle. Then again an anchor is better than a mushroom. In some stockless anchors the head appears to revert in some measure to the mushroom form, the arms being comparatively short and weak.

In a stockless anchor desirable quali- ties seem to be strength and accessibility of the connection of shank to head, side trips or horns instead of central trips, blades and form of head to give good penetration. Correspondingly bad points, in my opinion, are : inaccessibility or concealment of shank to head connection, wide flat head reverting to mushroom type, arms curved in the plain of cross- head, central trips or canting arms.

In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge the assistance I have received in the preparation of this paper from various firms of anchor-makers, including Messrs.

Charlton, Byers, Tyzack, and Wasteneys- Smith, all of whom have furnished me with valuable information as to their respective anchors. To Colonel Hozier, to Mr. R. Denny, and to Mr. Goodall, of the Trinity House, my thanks are also especially due.