Download Full Paper

Title: John Penn and Son of Greenwich 1799-1911,
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
1770. 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 1793. 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 1875. 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 1843. His
sister Charlotte married William Hartree II in 1839.
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 1842. 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 1899. 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 1815. 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 1825. 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.
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 1837-9, 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.
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 1825. The contract
value for Penn was £5 000. 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 1825. 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 £1 800. 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 £3 000. The case went to arbitration and
Penn was awarded £1 081 17s. The firm’s first venture
into marine engineering was a business disaster.
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
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 1842. 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’.6
3.3 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 18032641mm x 1067 -1219mm (71-104in x 42-48in) and
operating pressures 140-210kNm-2 (20-30psi).
accordance with Whitworth standards9 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 1867. 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 1871.
3.5 Wartime Profits and the Partners.
Figure 6. Gunboat Magnet.
Nearly two hundred gunboats were built inn 1854-6.
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
1854-6 was £590 000; £220 000 for the gunboats and
£370 000 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.
Figure 9. Lignum Vitae bearing, from Royal Charter.
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.
Figure 8. Lee Place (upper) and The Cedars.
4. ENGINES MADE BY THE FIRM.
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 320 000km (200 000miles) on the Australia run.
She was wrecked of the coast of Anglesey in 1859. 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.
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 1911.
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.
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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
8. REFERENCES.
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
1
Penn and Hartree family records and The Kentish
Mercury, 28 Sep and 2 Oct 1879.
2
Cantrell J and Cookson G, 2002. Henry Maudslay
and the Pioneers of the Machine Age. Tempus, Stroud.
3
Moffat H, 2002. Ipswich Ships and Shipyards, 1700 1970. Malthouse Press, Ipswich. Also National Science
Museum Library ARCH FIELD 1/2, 1/37-9.
4
Rennie Sir J, 1875. Autobiography. E&FN Spon.
London.
5
Lyon D and Winfield R, 2004 . The Sail and Steam
Navy List. All the Ships of the Royal Navy 1815- 1869.
Chatham, London.
6
Transactions of the Newcomen Society, 1922. Vol 2,
p114.
7
British patent no.11017. 1854.
8
Oram Sir H J, 1911. Fifty Years Changes in British
Warship Machinery. Proceedings of the Institution of
Naval Architects, 5 Jul 1911, p111.
9
Atkinson N, 1996. Sir Joseph Whitworth. Sutton,
Stroud.
10
as 6 .
11
British patent no.2114, 1854.
12
Hayward’s Patent Cases 1600-1883, Vol 8 pp 93374.