PROSPECTS IN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 30, 4 February 1916, Page 7

PROSPECTS IN SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

PEEP INTO THE FUTURE,

Apropos of the concern felt in some quarters regarding the prospects ahead of Britain at the conclusion of the war, in regard to merchant tonnage, a special article, written by a correspondent of the "English Shipping Gazette and Weekly Summary" should be of interest.

In hie opening remarks tho correspondent slates that the position and prospects of the British shipbuilding industry are, not without reason, giving wellinformed people a good deal of concern just now. Our resources, including our skilled labour, are largely concentrated on naval contracts, and progress of our contracts and the progress of our mercamtile work ia slow and uncertain. Moreover, with profits In nearly every instance limited, there will almost certniuiy be, unless the Government changes itis mind, ecrieus losses on come jobs which were in hand when the war broke out. The naval work is, no doubt, by itself remunerative, but when its costs, direct and indirect, are fully counted, the profits will, 1 fear, be in come cases to seek.

The most disquieting fact of the matter is, however, that while we are engaged in work necessitated by the war,' our rivals on the Continent, in the United States, and in Japan are busy doing the mercantile work which, in other circumstances, would have been done by us. Will we, when the hostilities are at an end, be able to recover that business? The first thought of some readers will probably be that we shall have no difficulty in recovering it. We were, before the war, they may say, the world's quickest and cheapest shipbuilders, and succeeded because we were. Our quickness and our cheapness cannot have been affected by the naval concentration. OUK FOREIGN RIVALS. We are, in fact, on our war records, quicker than ever. "But," other readers may say, "our foreign rivals who are doing tile work which in peace time would have been oure, are learning to be quicker and cheaper in their production." Moreover, these pessimists may Bay, they are expanding their productive i capabilities in order to cope with the I new demand, and remodelling their organisations with a view to further reductions of coste. By the time the war is at an end their prices and deliveries will more closely approach our pre-war I level than they have ever done. In I some cases, with a little State-aid, they jmay get dangerously near to it. ! My own estimate of the British industry's prospects is not quite bo pessimistic as that. Nor is it as optimistic as the other view which I have indicated. 'Die broad fact has to be remembered that the productive capacity of I the British shipbuilding industry ie I greater than Hint of all the world's other I industries toßcther. It has never been "run all out"—to use a sporting phrase —largely because whenever the output I reached a certain volume the restrictive I effect (if a shortage of skilled labour i became operative. In other words, the i mechanical provision for the construction of ships hms for a considerable time been greater than the provision of skilled labour. LABOI/R RKORGAN'LPATION" NECESSARY. If that mechanical provision for the construction of ships were utilised eilicicutly—if. that is, it were fully utilised —the British industry would not take long to reassert itself as the quickest and cheapest in the world. To that extent I agree with the optimists. It would beat foreign prices and foreign deliveries as far as ever, and tender a "nod deal of the capital which they are now fixing in new plant unprofitable. Foreign prices are at the moment lower than British prices, but they.arc—those which I have seen are, at any rate— imuch higher than normal British prices. Aβ for foreign deliveries—they are not at all—except in the United States— impressive. We are. I think, quite capable of beating both foreign prices and foreign deliveries when the war come to an end. Nevertheless, it is, even in my opinion, toy no means certain that we will do co. I have indicated one great weakness of our position. The mechanical provision is in excess of the provision of skilled labour. There is a .shortage of me,n. The evil is, however, worse than that. The available supply of men counts far less than its face value, partly because their grouping is out of date, and partly because they work irregularly. That is trouble which has been calling for a cure for yeare. If it is not cured now we ehall be seriously handicapped in the post-war fight, for contracts. THE CASE OF STEEL. A well known member of Parliament, with come claim to distinction as a political economist, used to say that tho base of British industry was cheap coal. Cheap eteel is just as essential to British shipbuilding, and it would be a good thing for the industry if it did not need sometimes to go outside of the United Kingdom for it. The British steelmakers' view on this question ie a sinpularly short-sighted one. It is thwt, because etcel "dumped" hy foreign malcers is sold for less than cost, snipbuildcrs ought not to buy it. But, if they do not buy it and their rivals abroad do, their business will cease to be profftable—will, in time, cease alto-' gether. I have said that the degree of -Ehe British shipbuilding industry's success in the post-war competition for trade will depend on some reorganisation of labour. It will aleo depend on the effort which the steel manufacturer makes to produce material at suitably low prices. If the Germans "dump" steel here at less than cost British steelmakers will have to deal with it, because the British shipbuilder will, ac I say, be obliged to bny it. How to deal with it is a steelmaker's problem—not a shipbuilder's. WHAT STEELMAKERS MIGHT DO. It is all very well to cay, as., some steelmakers do, that the shipbuilder who buys dumped foreign material is unpatriotic, and will suffer in the long run for his neglect of the native industry. But it carries the matter no further forward. Better progress would be achieved if tho steelmaker gave us his reasons for risking in the manner indicated complete loes of his business. If the Germans dump shipbuilding eteel against him and succeed, they will not hesitate to dump other sorts against him in other markets. Does he view that prospect with equanimity?

My own opinion is that he has not toa-de a serious effort to get down his costs. On the contrary, by combinin" for the control of trices he has Temoved tho incentive to get coste down. But even if his costs were at bedrock bottom there would be no excuse for hie

failure to deal with dumping. He is just as capable of organising the sale of the products of his industry as the Germans arc, and the care for damping is organisation. In the post-war period he will hare to organise his sales, for British shipbuilders cannot afford to pay more for their steel than their rivals do. TURBO-ELECTRIC PROPULSION. The writer of a paper on the subject of the most economical system of propulsion for a 600 ft 19-knot liner gives turbines driving through electrical gear the place of honour. Next to them he places turbines working in conjunction with the Fottinger transformer, and third on the list turbinc3 associated with Snechanical gearing. His conclusions wfll, no doubt, be esteemed to be odd by most naval architects and marine ! engineers, but on, at any rate, paper 'they are, 1 tliJnk, justified. Whether they will be verified in practice remains to be seen. I recall that when the late Mr. H. A. i Mayor proposed his "electric ship" he I mentioned that a well known Clyae firm J —iMeesrs. Benny, of Dumbarton, I think it was —had got out the particular of a vessel to be propelled by means of the system. The first cost was, however, deemed to be unprofitably high, and the proposal was in consequence carried no further. The first cost of the turboelectric ship in the comparison which I i have indicated is high. But according ■ to the writer of the paper, the ship is more profitable than any of the others. LOW FIRST COSTS. I mention the fact, not because I am personally a etrong believer in turboelectric propulsion, but simply in order to point a moral for shipowners. Low first cost is an idol 'before which the British shijjowner always bowing. So great is his faith in it that he has no eyes for anything- else. There is no doubt in his mind, of course, that Tjy spending money money may be made. But he seems to hesitate to apply the knowledge to the ease of ships. He hai, for example, adhered to the reciprocating steam engine for his cargo boats, largely because the geared turbine and tho Diesel engine are dearer. In the earlier stages of its development the geared turbine was suspected of an undue delicacy of construction. The oil engine was similarly suspect on I the ecore of reliability, and there were ! doubts that its fuel would ever be plentlj ful enough or cheap enough. Both machines lrave. however, outlived these early days of adversity. Yet cargojboat owners are shy of them on account iof their first costs, ahd decline to take i into consideration the fact that vcseels j fitted with them have greater earning I-power than the ordinary steamer. Is it ' not about time that the British shipowner .broke away from his allegiance ito low first ooet?