SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES. 219 
makes up his mind to adopt this method. Even steam engineering piping, complicated as it 
is, can be standardized to meet practically all conditions. 
One big additional advantage in standardizing ship construction is that it reduces 
largely the personal element and guesswork in estimating. A greater confidence can be had 
in an estimate which is a compilation of standardized units, and when bids are submitted 
on this basis they are comparable and uniform in their results. 
Mr. AttioLe J. Murray, Member:—While appreciating fully the able manner in which 
Mr. Rigg and subsequent speakers have pointed out the difficulties attending attempts at 
standardization of vessels, I am still not inclined to think that the idea of even standardi- 
zation is one to be definitely shelved by any firm of shipbuilders in this country. 
In England such firms as the Northumberland Shipbuilding Company and Russels of 
Port Glasgow have been largely built up on the production of “stock ships.”” Taking into 
consideration that the genius of this country leans toward standardization in general, this 
idea should prove capable of great development—it might even spell the difference in regard 
to the general freighter between building and not building. 
Carried to its logical conclusion, standardization would resemble that existing in the 
automobile industry. There would be Ford ships and Dodge ships, and the buyer would 
take his choice and not be consulted individually as to their design. 
After all, is there such a great difference in the required duties of the general freighter ? 
Would not the owners forget their pet likes and dislikes—and very often they amount only 
to that—if the supposed standard ship was cheap and able to run on its merits as undoubt- 
edly the Ford car is now doing? 
There have been, during the last twenty-five years, very few developments in the hulls 
of vessels compared with other commercial products, and one need hardly be afraid when 
putting in a standardization plant of being overtaken and rushed off one’s feet by successive 
radical changes. 
Neither should the results of the hurried and blindfold attempts to reach this ideal dur- 
ing the war be considered an argument against standardization. 
Possibly the matter will not be solved by conference but by the individual enterprise of 
some one having great vision, a small tendency to madness, and large tendency to spend- 
ing money. 
Mr. Cary E. Petersen, Member (Communicated) :—This year’s paper by Mr. Rigg 
is particularly appropriate, coming, as it does, at a time when the shipbuilding and ship- 
operating industries are at a low ebb, but hopeful of the changing tide. These industries, 
being of international scope and highly competitive, at present unaided financially by our 
government, especially need the benefits which accrue from reasonable standardization. 
While much can be’ gained by standardizing the design and construction of vessels dur- 
ing the stress of war, it will be found generally that the standardization of the size and pro- 
portion of vessels does not readily lend itself for the reason that they are determined by 
the trade and economic conditions which are constantly changing. It would seem, there- 
fore, that the greatest practicable field for standardization and simplification would be in the 
component parts: materials, machinery, details, fittings, equipment, etc., and methods used 
in the construction of vessels rather than in the vessels proper. 
The present period of depression is an opportune time in which to make a concerted 
