Teutonic. |\ | | | | | | | } 565 | 58 |43, 68, 110| 60 | 180 |18,000 | Majestic. |/ | | | | | | -----------------+-----------+-----+-----------+-------+----
----+-------+ Normannia. | 500 | 571/2 |40, 67, 106| 66 | 160 |11,500 | -----------------+-----------+-----+-----------+-------+----
----+-------+ Columbia. | 4631/2 | 551/2 |41, 66, 101| 66 | 160 |12,500 | -----------------+-----------+-----+-----------+-------+----
----+-------+ Empress of India.|\ | | | | | | Empress of Japan.| } 440 | 51 |32, 51, 82 | 54 | 160 |10,125 | Empress of China.|/ | | | | | | -----------------+-----------+-----+-----------+-------+----
----+-------+ Orel. | 415 | 48 |34, 54, 85 | 51 | 160 |10,000 | -----------------+-----------+-----+-----------+-------+----
----+-------+

Weight of Machinery Relatively to Power.—­It is interesting to compare the weight of machinery relatively to the power developed; for this comparison has sometimes been adopted as the standard of excellence in design, in respect of economy in the use of material.  The principle, however, on which this has generally been done is open to some objections.  It has been usual to compare the weight directly with the indicated horse-power, and to express the comparison in pounds per horse-power.  So long as the machinery thus compared is for vessels of the same class and working at about the same speed of revolution, no great fault can be found; but as speed of revolution is a great factor in the development of power, and as it is often dependent on circumstances altogether external to the engine and concerning rather the speed of the ship, the engines fitted to high speed ships will thus generally appear to greater advantage than is their due.  Leaving the condenser out of the question, the weight of an engine would be much better referred to cylinder capacity and working pressures, where these are materially different, than directly to the indicated power.  The advantages of saving weight of machinery, so long as it can be done with efficiency, are well known and acknowledged.  If weight is to be reduced, it must be done by care in design, not by reduction of strength, because safety and saving of repairs are much more important than the mere capability of carrying a few tons more of paying load.  It must also be done with economy; but this is a matter which generally settles itself aright, as no shipowner will pay more for a saving in weight than will bring in a remunerative interest on his outlay.  In his paper on the weight of machinery in the mercantile marine,[3] Mr. William Boyd discussed this question at some length, and proposed to attain the end of reducing the weight of machinery by the legitimate method of augmenting the speed of