Hotchkiss Cones - 'For every craft of every draft'

[davidwheeler]

Does anyone remember this system of propulsion? There is a bit about them in Waterways World May 1997, and rather more in Maritime South  West No 19. It was installed in a few narrowboats in the 1950s. One may still survive - I think 'Chance 11', which I noted on the Shropshire Union a few years ago. It was looking forlorn. I do not know if it still exists, with or without the system.

The attraction for narrowboats, particularly butties, was that it allowed a propulsion system without drilling through the sternpost and cutting into the rudder for a propeller. They were fitted in our boat.

If anyone has any recollections of the Cones in use, or knowledge of any boat in which they were installed, I would be glad to hear them.

[BEngo]

One of Tom Foxon's books, possibly "No1",  refers to the fitting of Hotchkiss cones  to a boat owned by a relative of John Knill.

 

N

[Bee]

A pair fitted to a wooden BCN Day boat - 'Moonraker' with a Russel Newbery engine I last saw In the 1980's, Shouldn't think it exists now.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Bee

[Tony Brooks]

I have a feeing that Morgan Giles fitted one/some in their GRP hire narrowboats. It is all a misty now, but I have an idea that Maid Line operated then from what is now Rose Narrowboats.

[Higgs]

Does anyone have a picture of this propulsion system - can't find a photo anywhere I've Googled.

 

 

[magnetman]

 

 

There was a unit the same as the left image on the canal bank below Common moor on the offside for a number of yars. Probably been removed and scrapped this was back in the mid 00s

[Higgs]

Thanks, but still can't see how it works.

 

 

 

[magnetman]

Its all rather contrafleurbious and technical. 

Nor can I. 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

4 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Thanks, but still can't see how it works.

 

From what I can remember, it did not work very well according to informal reports.

[magnetman]

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://rnliarchive.blob.core.windows.net/media/1334/0328.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjlhYCV9Lr-AhUMLsAKHcupBIg4ChAWegQIFBAB&usg=AOvVaw2NFKUQMAVZynJemlRQ7bUU

 

(pdf with detail)

 

 

 

[Higgs]

Surf Class lifeboat with Hotchkiss cone drives (modelboatmayhem.co.uk)

 

 

[magpie patrick]

Someone once described the hotchkiss cone as "consigned to history, and that's the best place for it" - although I understand an early hotel boat pair had one in the butty, and when the motor boat lost power the butty took over at the front of the convoy which raised a few eyebrows....

[Higgs]

It seems to have sucked water in at one end of the cone, by a propeller (impeller) of sorts, and jetted it out at the rear. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Higgs

[magnetman]

Presumably some sort of surface piercing jet pump. 

[davidwheeler]

I have masses of information about Donald Hotchkiss and his various inventions. Unfortunately our system here in France is such that upload speeds rarely reach 0.64 mgs, so I cannot send any.

Basically the system worked like this:  each Cone - most installations had twin cones, side  by side - was  shaped like a flower pot cut in half and laid on its side on the bottom planks of the boat, wide ends facing each other. In the area of bottom sealed by each cone, the timbers were cut away, leaving rectangular holes in the hull, secured watertight by the cones. Between the two cones was a gear box which drove inside each cone, via a shaft, a set of paddles. Each had four blades secured by bolts to the shaft from the gear box. So, just like a set of internal paddle wheels. The physics was that as the paddles revolved, so water was sucked in, spun round, and thrust out. If in forward gear, the water was thrust astern. If in reverse, the opposite happened.

There were problems with this system. There was no direct thrust against the rudder. There was no direct thrust at all. So going ahead was gradual, and steering, of a 70ft narrowboat, required patience and anticipation. Going astern was worse since each blade was slight curved, to get the maximum contact with the water drawn in. Which meant that going astern was akin to gently stroking the water. This could cause problems when misreading a sharp bend. 

But it did have some advantages in that they could operate in very shallow water. A fleet of passenger-carrying motor boats operated for years on the south coast, on a very shallow but very beautiful river. One of the Exmouth- Starcross ferries had Cones installed allowing it to operate where and when a propeller driven vessel could not. Hotchkiss Cones were sold with success throughout the world, where the conditions were such that shallow draft was necessary. So let us not dismiss them.

Our personal experience of Cones was challenging. We had a Morris Marine Navigator petrol engine of limited horse power. Albeit pretty to look at. On the narrow canals, risks were still high, although there was far less traffic about in those days. Just enough for someone to tow us off, before too long, when we got seriously stuck in the bank. But we were on the Stroudwater and the only way out was by the Gloucester & Berkeley. That is where the traffic was - thumping big Harker and Shell-BP tankers, plus dry cargo barges and tugs towing fleets of timber lighters. In this environment the Cones showed their metal. Time and again, the water would be sucked away from us by the passing barges, debris would be sucked into the Cones, the paddles would bend, jamming against the inside of the Cones with a thud thud thud, and stalling the engine. Completely helpless across the Ship Canal, we would take off the inspection plates of the Cone - six bolts - and unbolt the offending paddle - four bolts - bash the paddle back into shape, refix it, close the Cone inspection cover start,  the engine and get back out of the way before the next barge. In addition to these challenges, such was the surge from these passing large commercial vessels, that we would be forced aground and our rudder would be knocked off its pintles to fall with a resounding splash into the water. Not the easiest job to refit a butty tiller but we got skilled at it.

So there you are. Probably more than you wanted to hear about Hotchkiss Cones, but boating was an adventure in those days and with that system. And we loved it. And let it not be thought that I am criticising the commercial vessels. This was a commercial waterway and we were pleasure boating. They were earning their living and we were mucking about. Yet they were always considerate and helpful, and would give us a tow, if they could. And being towed at speed by a Regent tank barge is a rich experience.

 

 

 

[David Mack]

56 minutes ago, davidwheeler said:

Completely helpless across the Ship Canal, we would take off the inspection plates of the Cone - six bolts - and unbolt the offending paddle - four bolts - bash the paddle back into shape, refix it, close the Cone inspection cover start,  the engine and get back out of the way before the next barge

So I assume the top of the cone was above water level.  So the system would only suit shallow drafted boats.

[davidwheeler]

Certainly the top of the Cone was above water level. However that was just within our own boat. Mr Hotchkiss did not design the system specifically for shallow draft vessels. His vision was that his system would propel any boat or ship, of whatever size. I have a drawing prepared by him and published in his 3rd catalogue, of a large liner with fifteen Cones on each side, electrically driven. Dating from 1933, he made this claim:

"1. A practically unsinkable ship, the whole propelling power being automatically turned into a Pumping Plant in any emergency.

2. A vibrationless drive, independent of draught and which never races in a seaway.

3. Elimination of rudder, steering engine, stern spectacle framing and complicated stern.

4. Much better manouevring, which is also independent of steerage way.

5. Provision of a fire pump of outstanding capacity.

6. Absolute safety from breakage.

7. Absolute safety from breakdown. Many independent units being employed.

8. Safety from detection by hydrophones of enemy submarines.

9. Higher efficiency both ahead and astern.

With lower first cost of the whole ship".

Not all these claimed attributes helped us much in our ex FMC butty. Most, we found, did not apply at all. We certainly avoided attack by submarines, but any manouevre was challenging and breakdowns were frequent. But in those days, what other system of propulsion for a butty was available at pretty modest price?

It was Mr Hotchkiss' claim, and I am sure his belief, that his system could and should have powered Cunard's Queen Mary and  Queen Elizabeth. Unfortunately for him, others did not agree. So he never got the chance to install his Cones in a large sea-going vessel. But they were used in quite large ferries, and Polish gunboats.

 

 

[Higgs]

29 minutes ago, davidwheeler said:

Certainly the top of the Cone was above water level. However that was just within our own boat. Mr Hotchkiss did not design the system specifically for shallow draft vessels. His vision was that his system would propel any boat or ship, of whatever size. I have a drawing prepared by him and published in his 3rd catalogue, of a large liner with fifteen Cones on each side, electrically driven. Dating from 1933, he made this claim:

"1. A practically unsinkable ship, the whole propelling power being automatically turned into a Pumping Plant in any emergency.

2. A vibrationless drive, independent of draught and which never races in a seaway.

3. Elimination of rudder, steering engine, stern spectacle framing and complicated stern.

4. Much better manouevring, which is also independent of steerage way.

5. Provision of a fire pump of outstanding capacity.

6. Absolute safety from breakage.

7. Absolute safety from breakdown. Many independent units being employed.

8. Safety from detection by hydrophones of enemy submarines.

9. Higher efficiency both ahead and astern.

With lower first cost of the whole ship".

Not all these claimed attributes helped us much in our ex FMC butty. Most, we found, did not apply at all. We certainly avoided attack by submarines, but any manouevre was challenging and breakdowns were frequent. But in those days, what other system of propulsion for a butty was available at pretty modest price?

It was Mr Hotchkiss' claim, and I am sure his belief, that his system could and should have powered Cunard's Queen Mary and  Queen Elizabeth. Unfortunately for him, others did not agree. So he never got the chance to install his Cones in a large sea-going vessel. But they were used in quite large ferries, and Polish gunboats.

 

 

 

Are these cones meant to be driven independently, and varying the output of each could provide better steering?  Assuming a pair. 

 

 

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

Are these cones meant to be driven independently, and varying the output of each could provide better steering?  Assuming a pair. 

 

 

 

 

 

The diagrams I have seen show a simple bevel gear drive between the two cones so they would both rotate at the same speed. I base that on size and shape. If they had used a differential unit and brake bands on both cone drives, then you could achieve different speeds on each cone.

[billh]

I  recently mentioned  in another thread , the original trip boat at Uppermill on the Huddersfield Narrow & Shallow Canal. This had the Hotchkiss system, quite suited to that location at the time, 20 to 25 years ago. I remember it being  slow and not  very steerable. The boat as I recall .was 70ft long and may have been an iron Joey from the midlands. It was called Moonraker, a reference to the traditional story of locals attempting to recover the Moon from the canal! It was replaced by a conventional boat and sold , I think, to the organization that restored the canal arm (near Warwick?) that I can't remember the name of right now where they used it as a trip boat for some years. It may have had a wooden bottom which could explain  it becoming derelict.

[J R ALSOP]

Hotel boat "Saturn" had one fitted when I worked for Peter Froud in 1962/4 driven by Ford petrol engine, it was fitted midships and was very handy for towing "Jupiter" above Ellesmere on the Llangollen Canal when we had to lift the counter about 12" to get up the feeder.

[billh]

13 minutes ago, billh said:

 to the organization that restored the canal arm (near Warwick?) that I can't remember the name of right now where they used it as a trip boat for some years. It may have had a wooden bottom which could explain  it becoming derelict.

Saltisford Arm Trust

[zenataomm]

7 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

I have a feeing that Morgan Giles fitted one/some in their GRP hire narrowboats. It is all a misty now, but I have an idea that Maid Line operated then from what is now Rose Narrowboats.

I watched The Maid Line fleet being dragged out up the slip at Stretton Stop every Winter during the 60s.  They were all standard propeller driven.  I don't know about the Thames based craft.

[MtB]

On a brief search for Hotchkiss cones, I found a forum where someone says NB PRESIDENT was fitted with them at one time...

 

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/threads/hotchkiss-cone-propellors.28269/

 

 

[davidwheeler]

Thank you for this information. Please keep it coming.

I am not sure who first started fitting Cones to canal boats. I would like to know.  Or when.  It may have been in the late 1940s or very early 1950s when there were numerous redundant wooden butties. Anyway, late in the day for the Cone, which first appeared  reviewed in Engineering in August 1927. Cones were a simple and relatively easy way to motorise butties. I am unaware of any commercial carrying of goods with them - the few I know about were conversions to trip boats or hotel boats and a few private boats such as ours, converted shortly after the last WW. If anyone is aware of other narrowboats having them, I would be interested to learn of them.

This was not Mr Hotchkiss' aimed market. He had much grander ideas for his invention. He did carry out tests on the Thames with a basic hull design, which had it attracted buyers could have been used on the canal network but the real problem remained - the Cones just did not provide the same thrust per horsepower as a screw.

Not that Mr Hotchkiss accepted that. Because we experienced these problems, particularly evident, and quite disconcerting, on the River Severn, we asked his advice. He came up from his base in Poole to the Stroudwater Canal, jumped into the water, swam under the boat, and emerged telling us severely that the Cones had been wrongly placed too far forward. He was then in his very early seventies. Indeed, shortly before his death. The blame lay with us and not with the Cones. I am sure that he was convinced of that. We probably added to the problem by replacing the Navigator with a Commander diesel, more powerful but that power did not transfer itself into more thrust. 

It may be said that the Cone was an unsuccessful invention but that is not a fair assessment. Where the Cones did prove their worth was in conditions where screw propulsion would have been vulnerable: in shallow water, in feed invested  areas or where areas there was a risk of grounding. They were used in many parts of the world under those conditions, and repeat orders confirmed their success. It was said of his own boat, Cone propelled, that it needed only a heavy dew for it to navigate. And someone who had been with him on his boat told me that he could well believe it.