And that is the most flattering view of her (him? It?) from the several I have found. One of the rare ships which didn't have at least one good angle.
I imagine that being aboard the Connector in any form of bad weather would have been a once-in-a-lifetime experience. The perspective from the center segment as the ship entered the trough of a wave and the bow and stern simultaneously folded upwards towards one must have been ....well....unforgettable. Combine the probable constant violent flexing of the ship with roll and one would have the ultimate seasickness inducing experience.
I agree, those funnels are far too thin and tall. Ships should have funnels designed to enhance the ship, not make it look unstable. It looks to me as though those funnels would topple given a big swell.
As for funnels being forward of the superstructure, I think Lusitania and Mauritania's top deck was particually ugly after the fourth funnel. Ships with more funnels looked better with the funnels evenly spaced along the deck in which they are situated, like the Olympic class. Has anyone ever pictured the classic lines of Olympic ruined because the four majestic funnels were placed too far forward and to close together. She certainly wouldn't have those famous yacht like lines we know...
Atleast it didn't happen, eh?
The interesting thing with the Connector is that it was designed to detach the sections (trucks) at her destination spots in order to speed up departure times. She need only sail in, leave the module, and go on to her next port of call, rather than needing to stick around for coal unloading. The trucks would then be collected on the return trip.
The engines were in the stern section, so the foreward trucks would be pushed from there, almost like a tugboat pushing barges. The mounts for the sections were like giant door hinges, you can make one out in Jim's picture connecting the first and second sections (it's that round nodule at the bend). The foreward sections were equiped with masts and sails for independant operation detached from the stern.
Connector's only sailing was some test runs on a windless day in 1863. The inventor realized that while the ship could handle fore-aft pitching, side-to-side rolling would likely shatter the hinges. She never sailed again after her trials.
As ugly as the Governor's stacks are, there were probably some very practical reasons for making them as tall is they were. My bet is that any shorter, and soot getting all over the upperworks would have been quite a problem. Too bad too since the ship would not have looked all that bad otherwise.
The reason was soot. After she was converted to oil the funnels were shortened and, as Michael said, her appearance was improved. She was rammed by the West Hartland on the night of March 31, 1921,, listed severely and then broke in two and sank with the loss of ten passengers and crew, including the two small daughters of W.W. Washburn who were trapped in their cabin, and their mother who refused to leave them. The death toll would have been greater had not the West Hartland kept her bow wedged into the Governor's side long enough to allow many of her passengers and crew to jumop from ship to ship.
Josh- thanks for the great information on The Connector. Interesting about how the segments could be detached and left. Were the hull segments trapezoidal, and if not, how did they avoid having the lower portion of the bow section forcing its way into the lower section of the middle section the first time it flexed downward?
And then removed her original funnels and replaced them with low 1920's motorship-style ones which, I think, offset the vertical impact of her slightly too high forward superstructure. The original composition of tall thin funnels over a tall broad superstructure didn't work for me. I left my French Curve at work this afternoon and so was unable to put the white bands on the altered funnels (gave up after several failed freehand efforts) but maybe tomorrow will be able to.
Regarding "The Connector" -- we now have something very similar called a "composite unit." This is a single barge pushed by a much smaller pushboat. In service, the two are rigidly connected into a single vessel. They are not held together with wire cables like a traditional barge tow.
Like The Connector, one of the theoretical advantages of a composite unit is that the barge can remain in port while the expensive floating engine room and crew move to a new barge. In theory, this means less expensive turnaround times.
The real advantage of the composite unit is cost. A ship that size would require an expensive "unlimited" master (like Cap'n Erik), while the little pushboat can often get by with a cheaper 100-Ton "lower level" master like me. The crew requirements are smaller, too. What this says for safety is up to your imagination.
What that says for safety is someting I shudder to think about. Getting by with fewer bodies is nice when everything goes according to plan. What it says when things go to hell is another matter. Fewer bodies is fewer people to do the job (read that to mean: Fix the problem!) if the tug and barge combo gets into trouble.
This charming practice is not limited to the Great Lakes either in case anyone assumed that. These tug/barge rigs are being used on the open oceans. An example of this is the weekly cargo barge which supplies the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay Cuba.
That is an interesting....uh....connection between the two. The idea of removable segments was, and is, a good one and might have been workable even in the 1860s, but one is left wondering why the inane hinge idea was evidently followed through to completion when it so obviously could not work and, really, served no purpose other than to create a MORE unstable cargo environment.
It appears in the illustration that there is a beveled end on the aft of the first section. It's hard to make out, so I scanned and outlined the Connector illustration:
The two trucks form an overlap, with at least the foreward beveled. You can't tell if the second truck features a bevel in front or not, but I would assume so. Of course, this is going under the presumption that the illustration is correct.
Also, considering where the deck ends, there appears to be a gap between trucks. Possibly there was some sort of flexable gangway between the two.
(I've never used the upload before, I hope this works.)
Thanks, Joshua; I had not noticed that detail in the engraving.
Here are a pair of ships made ugly in the name of progress. One is the Flamenco, and the other is the Emerald (?) which, prior to unsympathetic alterations were a pair of Cunard Sylvania-class ships of the late 1950s/early 1960s, although I have forgotten which ones. I am not sure which looks worse- the retro 1970's superstructure and funnel the Flamenco boasts, or the original 1950s superstructure with the tacked on and ill-designed front end of the Emerald (?). In either case it is the equivalent of what happens when a misguided owner places a conttemporary storefront on a vintage building- the end result doesn't look modern or make the building look newer; it just looks inconsistent.
After looking closely at several pictures of this non-beauty I have come to the conclusion that her name was simply "Emerald." I wish that someone would get around to banning "Emerald" "Regal" "...of The Sea" and any use of adjectives or references to royalty in ships names, especially on the low end of the cruise ship scale where companies give ships names which are totally at odds with the sad reality of the vacation one will be getting: "Triumphant Regal Prince Of The Emerald Seas" seems inevitible.
Now we are getting some real primetime contestants! That thing above has a bridge like a set of wobbly dentures. Another Princess Line Ugly Stepsister pulled into Newport today-will crawl out on the pilings tomorrow with the camera. At least this one has a recognizable stern- rather Oriana and Canberra-esqe(also ugly candidates for unsighly sterns.
Another mind-boggling creation: Popoffka Novgorod, an 1875 Russian offering - the design was by Admiral Popoff - which failed to catch on. I am curious as to what advantages a circular hull was thought to have offered and how they overcame the natural tendency of spheres to rotate as they move.
And another: touching on a related topic- the ship with the overall worst interiors had to have been the President Doumer (Messageries- 1935) which is the most ponderous, heavy handed Art Deco I have ever seen- it makes the Queen Mary look cheerful by comparison. Here is the ugliest, narrowest and not incidentally steepest Grand Staircase afloat leading into the gloomiest dining room of them all. When I printed these negatives my initial reaction to the various rooms was "WHY?"