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

42 fuel per hour for ship’s use. A few hours stay with standby conditions will require a considerably greater amount of fuel per hour than will be. the case when the vessel is in port several days and is able to get down to true port operation. Therefore the value fixed for K: is made to apply to the whole voyage or represents a “multiple port rate.” The K, or car- go constant is based on water rate of the winches and the horsepower re- quired to handle the cargo. This horsepower value was determined quite accurately on one of our ves- sels fitted with electric winches. The K, value is determined by the water rate of pumps and horsepower required to lift the fuel, also by a heat balance applied to’ the problem of heating the fuel. At the time port standards were put into effect in 1923, the perform- ance of the vesels was divided as fol- lows: 10 vessels below 50 per cent rating. 20 vessels between 50 and 60 per cent rating. 20 vessels between 60 and 70 per cent rating. 10 vessels between 70 and 80 per cent rating. 7 vessels between 80 and 90 per cent rating. 1 vessel between 90 and 100 per cent rating. While the last voyage reports for the same vessels show the port per- formance standards to be: 1 vessel below 50 per cent rating. 11 vessels between 50 and 60 per cent rating. 15 vessels between 60 and 70 per cent rating. 24 vessels between 70 and 80 per cent rating. 12 vessels between 80 and 90 per cent rating. 5 vessels between 90 and 100 per cent rating. It will be seen from this that the average port performance efficiency has been brought up from 62.8 per cent in 1923 to 72.6 per cent in 1924. The total fuel used per hour in port has decreased from 560 pounds in 1923 to 495 pounds in 1924, or 65 pounds. As the cargo handled has increased somewhat, the amount con- sumed for ship’s use after deducting the amount required for bunkering and handling cargo is a better value to use for comparative purposes. This value has been reduced from 471 pounds in 1923 to 396 pounds in 1924, or a saving of 75 pounds per hour for ship’s use has been effected. The average mileage per year for one of the vessels is approximately 50,000 miles, which means that the MARINE REVIEW 80 vessels of this class travel a total of about 4,000,000 miles per year. With the pounds of fuel per mile fac- tor reduced 21 pounds this represents fuel reduction of 37,500 tons in sea consumption, which at the pres- ent cost of fuel represents approxi- mately $400,000 per year. The time spent at sea in traveling 50,000 miles at 10.43 knots amounts to 4794 hours, which leaves 3966 hours in the year for time spent in pilot waters and in port. Approximately 8 per cent of this time is used in pilot waters, so that time actually spent in port duty is bout 8600 hours per year. As noted above, the fuel required for other than bunkering and handling cargo purposes in port has been re- duced 75 pounds per hour. This, therefore, represents a saving of 120.5 tons per year per vessel. For the fleet of the 80 vessels of this class, this becomes 9640 tons, which, at present fuel prices, represents ap- proximately $102,000 per year. The combined savings made in sea and port fuel consumption therefore makes a total fuel saving of over $500,000 for this one class of vessels. Tables I and II show a tabulation of the same values as that for the Hog Island type for the eleven 9600- ton, D. W. T., turbine-driven, oil-burn- ing vessels built by the Federal Ship- building Co. now in active service in our fleet. These tables show an im- provement of 14.3 per cent in effi- ciency of sea performance and 10.6 per cent, in efficiency of port perform- ance. The speed has actually been increased 0.47 knot, the fuel per mile factor reduced 25.5 pounds, and the port consumption shows that the fuel required for ship’s use has been re- duced 138.8 pounds per hour. In those two cases where the inspection report showed decreased efficiency for this class, the difficulty was ‘immediately located as being inefficient personnel, which made it possible for the execu- tives of the company to promptly cor- rect this condition by changing to more competent officers. Similar tabulations of the other classes of vessels which make up the active fleet show a like proportional saving which, when applied to the larger consumers, such as the 10,000- ton cargo vessels and the passenger vessels, brings the total saving well above the $2,500,000 mark. In con- junction with this saving, maintenance charges have been’ reduced, . while more reliable and better service has been established. The accompanying chart shows the progressive improvement that has been accomplished in sea performance. Hight vessels of the same class, as January, 1926 shown on the tabulation, have been selected for this chart. These eight vessels were among the poorer per- formers of the class and were given especial attention both from the per- sonnel and material point of view. The average efficiency of performance for the six-months period from July 1, 1922, to Jan. 1, 1923; Jan. 1, 1923 to July 1, 1928; July 1, 1923 to Jan. 1, 1924; Jan. 1, 1924 to July 1, 1924, for each of the vessels and the av- erage of the eight have been plotted. It will be noted that in the first six- months period, five of these vessels continued to fall off in their efficiency, while three of them showed a slight improvement. During the second six- months period two of them continued to fall off, while three showed a mod- erate improvement and three showed a marked improvement. During the third period, one of the vessels which showed a marked improvement in the second period falls off slightly, one holds steady on the marks it has reached, three show continued mod- erate improvement, while three show marked improvement, the average curve showing: First 6 months period efficiency in- crease, 0.8; second 6 months period efficiency increase, 4.4; and third 6 months period efficiency increase, 6.3 per cent. The reason for this in- creasing increment is due to the time it takes first to get personnel inter- est in the efficiency of performance, which is shown by the first period. In the case of the especially poor per- formers this was easily accomplished by showing them their relative rating in comparison to their sister ships. This chart shows the improvement which has been accomplished on the vessels, where concentrated effort has been made to improve the efficiency of performance by application of the fuel conservation methods and the performance standards. Variable weather conditions, ocean currents, bottom conditions, are not perhaps’ absolutely accurately compensated for, but the standards do represent what can be done by the vessel under average conditions and they do permit a simple relative com- parison between sister ships and per- formance of the same ship which stimulates the efforts of the operat- ing personnel to produce maximum results, and they do indicate the trend of the efficiency of performance of the vessel. Thus they are serving as a considerable aid in the reduc- tion of the fuel consumption of our vessels, and as a real and practical criterion of the relative efficiency and attention to detail from an operating standpoint of our managing agents.