24 DISCUSSION ON MAY MEETING PAPERS. 



Mr. Metten and Mr. Shaw in their paper have covered much the same ground in treat- 

 ing Diesel engines, and we agree with their conclusions as to both reliability and fuel economy 

 of certain types of Diesel engines. The Diesel engine has unquestionably established its right 

 to fair and equal consideration on its merits. 



We believe, however, that the most valuable feature of both papers is the analysis of 

 operation of specific ships in specific routes with various types of propelling equipment. In 

 the case selected by Mr. Warriner he analyzed the operating cost of the same ship equipped 

 with different types of propelling machinery and concluded that the geared turbine will make 

 the best showing. Mr. Metten and Mr. Shaw have carried their operating analysis further 

 and have furnished more details and reduced their comparison to the basis of net annual reve- 

 nue for the ship and the percentage earned on the investment. Their comparison is also 

 based on a specific ship in a specific route and shows the motor ship to be a better invest- 

 ment than a turbine-operated steamship. Superficial consideration of such opposite conclu- 

 sions does not necessarily indicate that either of the authors is wrong. They both may be 

 and probable are right for the ships and trade route selected. 



The advocacy of any particular type of propelling machinery for all classes of vessels 

 and for all trade routes, without a searching analysis of probable operating results and the 

 compilation of comparative operating balance sheets, is a very short-sighted policy. Very 

 few designing and constructing engineers have been in a position to secure information 

 from actual operating records enabling them to apply to their theories the acid test of per- 

 formance. On the other hand, operators of vessels and their superintending engineers have 

 in many cases been too willing to let well enough alone. There is seldom that degree of 

 cooperation between the builders and operators of ships which is necessary to accomplish 

 the ultimate end of all commercial activities, viz., earning the highest return on a given 

 investment. 



After being without a merchant marine for many years, this cotmtry has by force of 

 circumstance become possessed of a huge tonnage which eventually must pass from govern- 

 mental control to that of corporations and individuals. Whether we continue to have a mer- 

 chant marine will depend on the profitable operation of our ships by the owners. 



Mr. Metten and Mr. Shaw infer that this result can be achieved only by the wholesale 

 conversion of the propelling equipment of these ships to Diesel engine drive or the building 

 of new motor ships. In our opinion such a conclusion is not warranted by a critical analysis 

 of one ship for one trade route. 



Assviming equal reliability and flexibility in operation, the only advantages which one 

 tjrpe of propelling equipment can have over another are : 



(as) To deliver a vmit of power with less fuel and supplies. 



(&) To have a lower first cost installed (including any extra cost of hull to 

 accommodate). 



(c) To weigh less. 



( d) To occupy less space. ' ' 

 {e) Require lower operating labor cost. ' 

 (/) Lower maintenance cost. 



No type of machinery which does not have an advantage over all others on all of the 

 six points mentioned above can be recommended for universal application. The Diesel 

 engine is by no means a new device. Its theoretical and actual saving of fuel has been gen- 

 erally known and admitted for approximately twenty years. Its general adoption has been 



