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

400 The answer has been "about ten min- utes.". It is to improve this state of things that I think some thing more should be done; surely every effort should be made to reduce this time in- terval to a minimum. The preferable method of doing this would be to sub- stitute operation by power for operation by hand. In my earlier paper I made a suggestion with regard to the above- mentioned tunnel to extend its useful- ness on the side of safety. Recognizing that suggestion as introducing too many difficulties for practical adoption, it seems to me that Article XV, para- graph 8 (a) of the Regulations might well be modified to make it compulsory even when there is only one door in the water-tight bulkhead dividing boiler- room from hold in front, that that door shall be operated by power, directed from the bridge or from some other suitable place. If this were done there would still be the necessity of keeping the coal clear of the door-slides; but on this point the Regulations are clear; Article XV, paragraph 5, provides that: "In the case of water-tight bunker doors satisfactory arrangement shall be made by means of screens or otherwise to. prevent the coal from interfering with the closing of the doors." Thus in future, one of the elements of time in closing should be effectively dealt with. My proposal is meant to deal with the other. © In this connection, or partly in this connection, I should like to call attention to what indeed is thoroughly understood --viz., the fact that the Convention for the most part restricts its findings to passenger ships. Clause II defines the ships in view as "merchant ships * * * which carry more than 12 passengers." The restriction was probably quite un- avoidable; as simplifying the problems involved it is eminently reasonable. But it may well become one's duty to take a wider field of view; the safety of cargo ships deserves consideration not much less than that of passenger ships. The regulations applicable to the one class ought in many instances to be applied to the other. In the matter I have just been discussing, for instance, many cargo-ships as well as passenger ships, have the door communicating between boiler-room and space in front, Such ships designed in the future would prob- ably be influenced by the Regulations, both in this matter and in others to which the Regulations apply. Any dis- cussion of the latter thus becomes of increased importance. Applicable in the first instance only to passenger ships, they will certainly indirectly affect cargo ships. The most important of them will probably in course of time, in most countries, be definitely extended by law to cover the latter class as well as the THE MARINE REVIEW former. The Regulations of the Con- vention may, in this respect, be con- sidered as the first of two steps; the second is yet to be taken. There is much room for discussion and consideration; and there is no doubt that in whatever -is done, in whatever it is found possible to do, for the safety of ships, passenger and cargo ships alike, this country--Japan--will ever be ready to take its share. Effect of the War. The effect of the great European struggle on the shipbuilding industry of Great Britain has not been anything like so great as on other industries, notably mining. Many reservists have, of course, left the shipbuilding centers for naval and military service; but, notwithstand- ing the shortage of material in certain directions--a shortage which is likely to become more serious--employment is plentiful. Warship construction, natur- ally is engrossing much attention; but in the yards where only merchant work is in progress, and in those where both naval and mercantile contracts are. in hand, the latter are at present being pushed forward much as usual. Delay there will be in many cases as the war continues, but shipbuilders will be able to protect themselves against claims by ship- owning companies for late delivery under the clause in the building contracts cov- ering delay arising from shortage of material. Naturally no new contracts are forthcoming, but the tonnage, both naval and mercantile, actually in hand is suffi- ciently large in volume to prevent any- thing like a serious shortage of employ- ment for a considerable time to come. Builders have been asked, in the case of a few contracts placed by British and foreign firms just before the outbreak of war, to postpone the actual com- mencement with the ships, but it is fully expected that this postponement will be only temporary, unless--which seems im- probable--the British war fleet suffers a serious disaster at the hands of Germany, resulting once more in the menace of the British oversea trade. According to the statistics available, only two mer- chant vessels of 7,950 gross tons were under construction in Great Britain for Austro-Hungarian owners when war was declared, and a like number for German firms, representing 4,290 tons. Another large vessel for German owners was ordered on the northeast coast just be- fore the outbreak of war, but of course this contract has been cancelled. As regards ship repairing, this industry is suffering probably more than ship- building. There is a tendency on the part of many repairing firms--particular- ly on the northeast 'Coast--to decline merchant work which would occupy their dry docks for a lengthy. period. \Doubt- less this policy is actuated by the desire October, 1914 to be ready for any emergency arising out of a possible naval struggle in the North Sea. As to warship work in private yards, it would not be patriotic to say more than that the whole forces of the ship- building industry have been unreservedly placed at the disposal of the British government. Just as in the world of home politics differences have been put into the background, so also shipbuilders and. their employes have buried the hatchet for the time being, and the vex- atious limitation of overtime by the trade unions and other contentious matters have disappeared. Steamship Pensacola The steamship Pensacola which has been built on the arch principle of con- struction for Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., of West Hartlepool and London by Osbourne, Graham & Co. of Hylton, Sunderland went to sea for her trials . recently when a speed of ten knots was obtained in the loaded condition. The dimensions of the vessel are 279 feet long by 40 feet 2 inches broad, 18 feet 9 inches deep with an arch of 6 feet. She carries about 3400 tons deadweight on 18 feet draft and has been built to. Lloyd's highest class from plans sup- plied by the patent proprietors who are Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, Ltd., and Mr. Maxwell Ballard. The Pensacola has been designed as a general trader to carry ore and timber. She is the first of two vessels to be built on the arch principle for Furness, Withy & Co., the second vessel being built at the North of Ireland Shipbuild- ing Co.'s yard Londonderry. The ma- chinery of the Pensacola has been sup- plied by Richardson, Westgarth & Co. Ltd., of Hartlepool and consists of a set of triple expansion engines, having cylinders 20% inches x 33 inches x 54 inches with 36-inch stroke taking steam from two main boilers with a working pressure of 180 pounds per square inch. Though the Pensacola is the first arch vessel built for Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd. it is the eighth arch vessel that has been completed in the last few years, and two others are in course of construction. That Furness, \ Co. should place orders for arch vessels points to a recognition of the advantages of this system of construction which have been conclusively established by the results of those vessels already in commission and the proprietors of the arch system are to be congratulated upon the definite progress made and upon securing such notable clients. During the trial trip there were present D. Ross who superintended the construction of the vessel on behalf of the owners Mr. T. H. Patterson of Osbourne, Graham & Co, and Max- well Ballard who represented the patent proprietors. SS Pe. Withy &.