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

Po ee “Stone Shij S Tventy-Véar Operating Period for Steel and Concrete Vessels, oe Including Initial Cost and Fuel Charges, 1s Basis of Comparison ms government indicates that the con- ™ crete steamer is a competitor of the steel ship, both in cost of construction and propulsion under present conditions and under the conditions which it is expected will prevail during the more normal times of the immediate and en- suing post-war period. The only element of doubt that enters into this statement is whether the life of the concrete ship is equal to the life of the steel vessel, according, to R. J. Wig, head of the concrete ., division of the Emergency Fleet corporation, who is now on the Pacific coast, inspecting the government’s concrete shipbuilding yards at Oakland ‘and San Diego, Cal. Based on ex- haustive investigations, which have been in process since the inception of the idea to build the pioneer concreter FaitH, Mr. Wig and his department have finally arrived at the conclusion that the concrete steamer cannot only be built more economically than the steel vessel of similar deadweight capacity and speed, but that the combination of propulsion costs for 20 years and the construction costs is considerably lower -in the case of the concrete craft than it is in the case of steel steamers. This comparison of the life of the two types of steamers only Time itself can make. Neither Mr. Wig, nor any of the other authorities on the Pacific coast interested in concrete shipbuilding are prepared to say that the concrete steamer will be the ship of the future. At the same time, confidence in the efficiency of the stone ship as a cargo carrier— perhaps even more so as a passenger carrier—is increasing in almost direct proportion. with the progress of the work in the government yards. In regard to the passenger carrying possibilities of the concreters, Mr. Wig says: ‘The concrete steamer has greater rigidity and less vibration than the steel vessel. Weight is of less importance in passenger service and I do not think it will be denied. that the concrete steamer is a much easier riding vessel in every respect than is the steel carrier. The concrete steam- er can be engined to make just as high speed as the steel vessel and in comparing the two types there are many elements more favorable to the concrete than to the steel steamer for passenger service.” Mr. Wig has prepared figures and details, shown in the accompanying [severe in compiled by the table, on the relative values of the cost of constructing and propelling concrete and steel ships both at pres- ent prices and at expected post-war prices. A comparison of the figures for the two periods has a_ special significance when they are considered as being indicative of the govern- ment’s own forecast of the conditions. which will prevail in the shipbuilding and operating fields when more normal times ensue. The government assumes, for in- stance, that steel tankers may be built for $100 per ton in the actual Table: I Comparison of Conerete -and Steel Tankers fg 7500-ton 7500-ton concrete steel tanker tanker ; Characteristics Length, feet, inches 420 0 392 0 Beam, feet, inches 54.0 51 0 Depth, feet, inches “36 0 31 2 Draft, feet, inches 26 0 24 0 Displacement, tons 13,000 10,650 Values of I. H. P. at various speeds Knots, Knots 10% 11% 10% 11% OR a oe ety 990 1320 886 1208 Efficiency ........ 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 RE? haa een 1980 2640 1772 2416 post-war period, as compared with a present cost of $240 per ton. The present cost of building a concrete tanker is given at $180 per ton and the expected post-war price at $75 per ton. The cost of fuel oil will drop, the government thinks, from the pres- ent price of $2.75 per barrel to a cost of $1.75 per barrel in the post- war period. The government, it is thought, even in its most sanguine moments, does not expect that the shipyards of this country, either publicly or privately owned, will be able to compete on an even basis with British yards in the economical production of steel ships. It is stated that the British yards ex- pect to turn out steel vessels at a rate somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 a ton. The government in esti- mating the post-war possibilities of shipbuilding in this country is assum- ing that steel ships built here will cost $100. According to advocates of concrete ships, this supports the conclusion that America should pro- mote the production © of concrete 190 PNG: Sag Lo EN aE ig te Ee Ge OLD LICL Te tT, ARN oe OE eae ays) ere ee See steamers which, according to Mr. — Wig’s figures, can be built and pro- ~ pelled for less, under the assumed — post-war conditions, than can the steel ships. Of course this balance in favor of the concrete steamer applies only — when vessels of the two types are compared in which there is a large differential in construction cost. © es government presumes that concrete steamers much cheaper than steel craft, that the lower first cost of the concrete | vessels will more than offset the higher cost of the greater amount of fuel oil used in the propulsion of the stone boats. For instance, at the prices prevailing on Jan. 22, the gov- ernment gives the present value of cost of constructing and propelling for 20 years a concrete tanker of 7500 deadweight tons with a speed of 10% knots at $2,839,494 as compared with $3,133,032 as the value of cost of building and propelling a steel tanker of the same size and speed for a - similar period. The total for the con- crete tanker includes $1,350,000 as the total cost of construction and $1,489,494 as the present value of cost of fuel oil as compared with a building cost of $1,800,000 and a present value of cost of fuel oil of $1,333,032 for the steel tanker. In other words the concrete tanker, under present conditions, would cost less to build and more to propel for 20 years than the steel tanker; but the total cost of both building and propelling the concrete tanker for 20 years would be less, it is claimed, than the cost of building and propelling a steel vessel of the Same capacity, type, and speed. Under post-war conditions, the government expects to obtain a present value of cost of construction and propelling a concrete vessel of this type for 20° years of $1,510,362 as compared with $1,598,290 for the steel tanker. The building of the 7500-ton con- crete tankers at the government yards at Jacksonville, Fla. Mobile, Ala. Wilmington, N. C., San Diego and Oakland, Cal., is an unprecedented feat in reinforced concrete construc- tion, according to the Emergency Fleet corporation’s resident represen- tative at Oakland, Captain Hynds. The concrete aggregates being used in the pouring of ships at the Oakland yards have a weight per cubic foot of only can be built originally so