208 STANDARDIZATION AS AFFECTING THE 
innocent at first, but wait till you begin writing to the makers of the auxiliary machinery, 
to say nothing of your own machine shop’s feelings in the matter! 
STANDARD SHIPS. 
Taking standardized ships first, as distinguished from variegated ships built from stand- 
ard parts: during the war we built many such standard ships; the Hog Island, Submarine 
Boat Corporation and Great Lakes numbers and types of standard cargo vessels stand out 
preeminently as the biggest efforts along those lines. There were also other standard cargo 
types, but these were built in fewer numbers. The vast numbers of submarine chasers are 
another instance, also the large number of destroyers built for the Navy. 
The cargo vessels above referred to were laid down to meet a war need, it is true, but 
they remain distinct from the strictly naval vessels. As one effective answer to the subma- 
rine campaign of the enemy, they, without doubt, fulfilled their object. The 7,825-ton Hog 
Island boats are a more generally useful type than the submarine boat 5,075-tonners or the 
Great Lakes 4,200-ton steamers, useful as these smaller vessels are in such localities as the 
Baltic and on the short-run trades. 
That we shall again witness such an effort is not probable; further, that this effort has 
helped to put a quietus on general cargo vessel construction for some time ahead is also to be 
admitted. As an example of standardized work which justified its conceivers, there is no 
doubt that it did more than make good; while there were differences in detail in these groups, 
such minor variations did not alter the status of the ships as standardized products. These 
detailed differences sometimes indicated progress, but were in many cases unjustifiable and 
extremely annoying to the builders; they serve to emphasize one of the main arguments 
against standardization, namely, that it prevents progress. Automobiles are standardized, 
but that does not prevent improvements being made in the 1922 over the 1921 model. In the 
same way, succeeding ships for a particular trade can and do embody improvements over the 
earlier ones. 
The situation for standard ships would appear to be as follows: In emergency, when 
large numbers of ships are wanted in a hurry, by all means build to a standardized design. 
When all are building in one yard this holds absolutely; when building in several yards it 
holds in general, with the qualification that each yard should be allowed to adhere to its own 
general way of doing business and to work to the same general plans and specifications in its 
own way, with freedom as to details. This can be qualified to say that full consideration 
should be given to a yard having plans, etc., available for a vessel substantially equivalent to 
the proposed standard ship. 
Main and auxiliary machinery should be common to all ships of the type and therefore 
interchangeable from ship to ship to a very large extent; this has helped deliveries fre- 
quently when a broken part in an earlier ship can be taken from a later vessel. 
As a normal proposition, wholesale standardization of complete ships is not to be looked 
for. It cannot be denied, however, that there are so many tramps of certain deadweights as 
to very closely approximate standardization. The large class of 7,000 to 8,000 tonners is 
worth noting, even though we have variety in detail to suit different builders’ and owners’ 
ideas. 
When repeat orders are given for a vessel already built, the work is thus partly stand- 
ardized. There are many instances of this on record; a type proves satisfactory in service 
