The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

January, 1914 In fact, I was an ardent advocate my- self of such methods of construction, and several of the warships of the navy were fitted without any water- tight doors in the transverse bulkheads in the machinery compartment it has ence has shown that the pressure of daily inconvenience overcomes the remote improvement in safety, and in the course of time I believe every one of those ships had watertight doors fitted into transverse bulkheads in the machinery spaces. I think any consideration of watertight subdivis- ions that leaves out the tendency of the seagoing man to search for im- mediate convenience at the expense of ultimate safety has to be carefully considered. Safety of Ships E. H. Rigg:--In Mr. Robinson's re- marks on this paper by Mr. Dickie, I was glad to hear him suggest that the society should take an active interest in whatever is done in the matter of providing safety for ships. The rec- ord of the society shows it has always taken an active interest in such mat- ters. Prof. Sadler mentioned the impor- tance of strength of bulkheads. The records of our socity contain a most excellent paper on bulkheads by Prof. Hovgaard. I think his paper is rec- ommended as a standard. I mention this to show that the society has al- ways been active, and I hope the society will maintain that interest. The department of commerce has recently been conducting investigations into the subject of bulkhead subdivis- ions, with a view to taking part in the present conference in London. The British government, in 1891, had a bulkhead committee, and that bulk- head committee made an excellent re- port, which is of great value today. The present bulkhead committee, which is distinct from the conference work, will probably' report further progress. I imagine Commander Robinson's idea was (and my own would be) not that he had any idea of the society being indifferent to these matters, but that the society should take an active and aggressive movement with the department of commerce, and _ not merely have good papers on record. but to have some one go there and cram the contents of these papers down the throats of the people in the department. zi R. H. Robinson:--That is exactly what I believe in. A. P. Lundin (Communicated) :--I have read Mr. Dickie's paper with much interest, and regret that I could not be present and take part in the THE MARINE REVIEW discussion. I admire Mr. _ Dickie's courage as regards his plan for an un- sinkable and fireproof ship. I wish him every success in constructing such a ship and trust that when it has been completed, it will stand thorough dem- onstration of the correctness of Mr. Dickie's theories. If actual tests prove them correct, I think that steamship operators and financial interests back- ing the "unsinkable, fireproof ship" enterprise, should be willing to show their confidence by taking out no in- surance.on a ship of this type, nor on. its cargo. "I beliéve that such a show of confidence might tend to in- fluence the authorities as well as the general public to consider ocean travel without lifeboat equipment. It seems to me that it would be to the interest of safety at sea if-- until the unsinkable, fireproof ship is really an accomplished and proven fact, ship owners and naval architects would give due attention to the quali- ty and efficiency of lifeboat equipment and the handling of lifeboats in rough water as well as in a smooth séa, in other words, lifeboats should be pro- vided which will stand being thrown against the ship's side without smash- ing and also make it possible to carry the requisite number of boats without encroaching unduly on the deck space, while representing less actual weight per person carried. Here in the United States we have ships so equipped; for instance, some of the army transports. Formerly these ships of moderate size, had life- boat capacity (including rafts) only 700 to 800 persons, while with their new, up-to-date equipment they can take care of 2,000 persons, the full complement of persons carried, in practically the same deck space. The additional weight of the new equip- ment does not seem to have affected the stability of the transports, al- though they are old and narrow and were not designed originally for this added equipment. Efficient Lifeboat Equipment Certainly the increased weight of really efficient lifeboat equipment is a mere bagatelle as compared with the increased weight of such a design as proposed by Mr. Dickie. A most important factor in con- nection with safety at sea is that officers and crews of ships should. be properly trained by actual drills in the handling and launching of lifeboats; therefore, it is decidedly important that the equipment be as complete and up-to-date as possible in order to fa- cilitate and encourage such drills. It is all very well to say that life- boat equipment will be of service only for in exceptional cases, but we should also consider the great amount of use for small boats every day--whether the water be rough or smooth; for in- stance, in embarking or disembarking from ships which have to lie in open roadsteads, where there is no harbor; also in the work of cable ships and fishermen. As regards the added cost for such equipment, I think where the ques- tion of safeguarding human life is involved, this is certainly not great when compared with the premiums paid for insurance on ships and car- oes. Automatic Buoyancy Until, by actual tests, the contrary has been -proved, I contend that it is advisable to have proper lifeboat equipment on the most modern pas- senger ships, even as the most modern fireproof buildings are still provided with fire escapes, and my contention is upheld by the fact that ship owners, as well as owners of buildings con- tinue to insure their property. William Gatewood:--In reply to Mr. Robinson's discussion of the paper, I would like to state that it seems to be much more important to so sub- divide the vessel that it will automat- ically take care of the buoyancy and stability of the vessel, rather than to depend on the pumping in of com- pressed air, which, under all circum- stances, must be a matter of consid- erable time and of preparation. It will be noted that my paper is devoted primarily to the conditions © which arise in the United States in the construction of vessels, and does not enter upon the wider discussion of the Atlantic liners; but it would seem that a further subdivision of At- lantic liners carrying a large number of people, principally of passengers, would be in order over and above the subdivision of transverse bulk- heads.. To obtain this subdivision mere longitudinal bulkheads have grave. defects, due to the destruction of the stability of the vessel, and the in-. troduction of watertight flats or decks is open to objection on anything ex- cept a purely passenger vessel, on ac- count of the difficulty of utilizing the spaces below this deck for the carry- ing of cargo without great inconveni- ence. On the other hand, on the purely passenger vessel, it would seem to me that the introduction of water- tight decks, rather I should say the introduction of watertight compart- ments, separate and distinct from the shell of the vessel, which could be formed by means of two watertight flats and two longitudinal bulkheads, near the center of the ship, to limit