When a man-of-war falls out of formation at sea, or one or more of the guns fail to fire on time during target practice, somebody must explain.
Such failures may result from improperly trained personnel, but, with the exacting standard set for officers and men and the intensive yearly training, the number of casualties caused by the human element is kept to a minimum. Improper design of the engines or mechanical equipment sometimes is responsible for breakdowns. In such cases, immediate steps are taken to correct the fault and to benefit by this experience in future designs. Old age, as we all know, results in many mechanical and electrical casualties. Fortunately, a strong rebuilding program offsets troubles of this kind. There is one type of casualty which must be continually guarded against, the one caused by material of inferior quality, material which has been poorly or improperly made or worked or both.
Half of our naval ships are now being built in navy yards. With the exception of minor repair facilities on the tenders and ships themselves, the ships of the fleet are solely dependent upon these shore establishments for their major overhauls.
Each navy yard has its foundry where the raw metals are cast. The furnaces must be the right type and right size or their output will be inferior and weak. The normalizing furnaces have to be controlled within exact temperature limits or the work which passes through them will be full of strains or, if the temperatures get too high, a burnt and poor product will result. For the heat-treating department the demands are ever increasing. The old oil and gas-fired furnaces in many cases must be replaced with electrical ones so as to control the high temperatures within a 4- or 5-degree limit.
The high-speed machinery afloat today demands the most accurate type of machining in its construction and for its repair. To accomplish this kind of work requires accurate machine tools, such tools as can remove metal, in some cases, with an allowed tolerance less than a half of a thousandths of an inch. Then again these machine tools must be modern, for the labor cost of operating old and obsolete equipment is too high. Modern tools remove many times more metal per hour than old ones. Their adjustments and cutting speeds can be set more easily and quickly.
When a commanding officer takes his ship into the navy yard with a long list of repairs only to discover that not more than half of them can be accomplished because of insufficient funds, does he ever stop to think that more of that list might be taken care of if the machine-tool equipment of the yard was more modern? The question therefore arises: How well equipped are the navy yards to handle the work on hand? Let us touch briefly on the practices of one of the more progressive commercial concerns of this country in connection with replacing their machine- tool equipment, namely the Blanchard Machine Company. Their policy of continuous replacement is particularly interesting and suggestive. The following is quoted from their own brief:
The replacement policy of the Blanchard Machine Company is to purchase in each year new machine tools amounting in price to at least 10 per cent of the replacement price of all its machine tools. Extensions of plant are in addition; the 10 per cent is replacement only. This policy was adopted in 1923 for the following reasons, which are believed still to hold true:
(1) It is usually profitable to replace a 10-year-old tool.
(2) Money set aside to cover depreciation should be spent at once for new machines, because
(a) Depreciation and obsolescence are continuous and must be continuously met by replacements, otherwise the shop will be increasingly handicapped as compared with shops whose equipment is up to date.
(b) Money invested in modern tools earns more than when invested in securities.
(c) Depreciation reserves, allowed to accumulate instead of being promptly used for their intended purpose, offer a temptation to use the money in other ways.
(d) There is less resistance on the part of directors and stockholders to the regular purchase of some equipment each year, than to occasional large expenditures for equipment.
The per cent minimum figure suits our conditions. In some other industry a different percentage of replacement might be preferable. The essence of the policy is not the mere rate of 10 Per cent; it is continuous replacement, purchasing at least a certain minimum amount each year, this amount being a definite percentage of total replacement cost. With our 10 per cent depreciation rate and the experience that it is usually Profitable to replace machines 10 years old, it seemed wise to set the minimum at 10 per cent per year.
The application of the policy is simple. Knowing that some new tools will be purchased each year, the shop superintendent keeps a perpetual fist of tools whose age, condition, or efficiency relative to that of the new models indicates their need for early replacement. From this list the items are selected whose replacement promises the greatest gain. Each is then studied, and if little or no profit will result from replacement, that item is dropped for the moment and another taken from the list. Formulas and periods within which the machine must save its cost are not used. They are difficult to apply to general-purpose tools operating on a variety of work in small lots.
Returning to our navy yards, the machine tools at these various stations, with the exception of the Naval Gun Factory, Washington, D. C., are primarily for work under the cognizance of the Bureau of Construction and Repair and the Bureau of Engineering. Because more than one bureau is interested in this equipment, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy has been made responsible, and it is through his office that all recommendations for new equipment and replacement of old equipment must pass.
Equipment such as lathes, milling machines, boring mills, etc., is carried on capital account and not chargeable to indeterminate or overhead account. Therefore, it is necessary for Congress to make direct appropriation for the purchase of navy yard needs in this line.
After the war the activities of the various yards were greatly curtailed and as a result much surplus machine tool equipment lay idle. This surplus was drawn on from time to time as the machines in operation began to break down or wear out. In fact, up to 1930 no new equipment of any considerable amount was purchased. By 1929 the Assistant Secretary of the Navy’s office realized that appropriate steps had to be taken to keep down the mounting labor costs of operating old and obsolete tools. Further, the art of working metals had advanced to such a stage that new and additional equipment was found to be an economic necessity. Early in 1930 an inspection of the continental navy yards was ordered by the Navy Department. The inspection party consisted of department personnel and Mr. Barton P. Phelps, Mechanical Engineer (Shop Superintendent of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railroad), whose comments and suggestions throughout were most helpful.
From orders and conferences held prior to the inspection trip it was understood that the department desired to accomplish the following with respect to machine-tool equipment:
(1) Maintain machine tools in all navy yards to a standard which would insure:
(a) sufficient number of each type of tool to handle work load required or in prospect;
(b) accurate machining;
(c) economy in production;
(d) safety in operation.
(2) Maintain shop buildings, yards, and appurtenances which would give:
(a) Proper housing to preserve the required tools;
(b) housing facilities which would favor economical production of work by location of buildings with reference to the work and the proper arrangement of the tools in the buildings;
(c) safety of personnel working in these buildings.
Based on these instructions, inspection was made of tools, yards, and equipment in as much detail as time permitted, special attention being given to machine tools. In order that full information as to each yard’s needs might be easily and completely presented to the inspecting party previously mentioned, the commandant of each continental yard was requested to have the following form filled out on cards for each piece of equipment desired or considered necessary:
These cards proved to be most helpful. They were carried along with the inspecting party and appropriate notes made on them as each machine up for replacement was visited. The cards which called for new equipment other than replacement machines were discussed at the proposed points for the new installation. By this method it was fairly simple to make a definite decision on the spot as to the relative need for a new machine and whether, or not the type and size requested was proper.
After visiting all of the shops in each yard the cards were arranged by mutual agreement between the yard officials and visiting officials into a common priority list. These lists, along with lists submitted by the navy yards not on the continent, were worked into a single priority list by the board. It is of interest to note that this same method is still used to arrive at the yearly needs of the various navy yards.
Typical conditions of the various shops and tools may be seen today by a visit to our yards. In them may be found many that are real museum pieces. Probably one of the oldest of the old faithfuls is a planer purchased in 1869 and still in use in the Navy Yard, Portsmouth, N. H-, with a sister to it at Norfolk. How fine it would be to replace these machines with new ones capable of turning out accurate work many times faster! New construction calls for the scarfing and flanging of many large deck plates. New planers can cut with as many as seven to eight tools at one time while those old-timers must struggle along with one or possibly two.
An old vertical boring mill, on which several thousands of dollars have been spent in its life time, mostly in an effort to repair the existing clutch or apply a better one, is still in use at Bremerton. Several mechanical brakes have been constructed to keep its table from turning while lining up work, but still an old- fashioned wedge has to be driven in it to prevent accidents.
An effort is being made to do away with all overhead belting. Not only is overhead belting hazardous but it interferes with the efficient lighting of shops and is costly maintain. Every shop master lives in hopes that some day his equipment will free of such a menace. Present policy dictates buying all new equipment with individual motor drive so that when the machine is not in operation no current is required for the rotation of unnecessary siting and shafting.
Contrast old shop conditions with those existing in the shops having more modern equipment, equipment where the proper speed for cutting can be almost instantly Stained without loss of time or risk to life or limb.
The machine-tool industry is continuity striving to improve its products. Closer tolerances, safety, and greater ease and speed of operation are demanded by users of such equipment. Machines that are belt driven are not the only ones that are becoming obsolete. Manufacturers resize that it is profitable to replace equipment which can no longer take heavy or fast cuts and so must the Navy. There are too many machines in our yards today Much can do only one-half to one-third of file work that a new machine can accomplish.
Before making the inspection early in 1930, it was considered desirable to determine the probable annual replacement Cost of machine tools and the relation of this sum to the value of the equipment in the navy yards as a whole. Reference was made to the 1929 Annual Report of the Paymaster General of the Navy. From this report it was noted that the initial cost of all machine tools in the active navy yards under the direction of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy’s office totaled §28,244,563, and the appraised value totaled only $4,965,018. For accounting purposes the value of machine tools is depreciated at the rate of 5 per cent per year.
From correspondence in the files with respect to replacement values of machine tools in 1929, the following figures were set down showing the initial cost of machines in each yard and the calculated replacement value. The average replacement value above was approximately 1.264 times the initial cost, perhaps a little low for some yards but on the whole rather conservative.
|
Replacement Value |
First Cost |
Portsmouth. |
$ 2,310,000 |
$ 1,822,700 |
Boston........ |
4,120,000 |
3,252,086 |
New York.... |
6,324,000 |
5,015,439 |
Philadelphia. |
5,464,000 |
4,328,164 |
Norfolk........ |
6,050,000 |
4,757,700 |
Charleston.. |
1,465,000 |
1,163,269 |
Mare Island. |
4,010,000 |
3,170,839 |
Puget Sound |
3,410,000 |
2,703,776 |
Pearl Harbor |
1,670,000 |
1,322,426 |
Cavite......... |
894,000 |
708,164 |
Total..... |
$35,717,000 |
$28,244,563 |
Assuming all tools replaced when 20 years old at 1929 prices, then the annual replacement cost would be $35,717,000/20= $1,785,850. Or, assuming all tools replaced when 25 years old at 1929 prices, the annual replacement would cost $35,717,000/25=$1,428,680.
Installation costs roughly average 10 per cent of the cost of the equipment. The above replacement does not include portable power tools or loose and hand tools which when replaced are chargeable to overhead.
The department’s records showed that $1,600,000 worth of surplus machine-tool equipment had been used since the war; that the supply of such equipment had been exhausted and that during the years 1925-29, inclusive, only an average of $260,000 per year had been spent on new machine tools.
The board after completing its visit to the yards in May, 1930, and bearing at all times the following points in mind, namely,
(a) Reduction of load at certain yards;
(b) Increase of load at other yards;
(c) Investments which should be made in machine tools and other equipment for reducing labor costs and increasing efficiency which were requested in addition to the tools required for replacement;
(d) Check of value and age of existing tools;
(e) Inspection of shops;
(f) Observation of work on hand;
(g) Estimate of work in prospect;
decided to recommend to the department that $1,500,000 should be spent annually for at least five years (fiscal years 1930- 34, inclusive) for replacement of machine tools, with the further recommendation that at or before the expiration of this 5- year period the yards should again be surveyed with respect to equipment and work on hand or in prospect and the replacement program revised accordingly.
Fortunately the recommendation as outlined, after a careful hearing in May, 1930, before the Congressional Committee on Naval Appropriations, was favorably received and as a result the Naval Appropriation bills for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1930-32 carried the sum of $1,500,000 each year, exclusively for the procurement and installation of new machinery and equipment for shops under the cognizance of the Bureau of Construction and Repair and the Bureau of Engineering.
On account of the depression and the need for rigid economy, this sum of $1,500,000 was reduced to $500,000 for 1933 and 1934 and omitted for 1935.
The actual sums spent for machine tools during the past five years were:
1930 |
1931 |
1932 |
1933 |
1934 |
$1,500,000 |
$1,500,000 |
$900,000 |
$200,000 |
$1,451,220 |
In other words, the sums appropriated for 1932 and 1933 were not fully expended while the year 1934, which had only $500,000 ap-. propriated for machine tools, received almost its recommended allowance from P.W.A. funds.
At present the navy yards have a work load greater than at any time since their war-time peak. With the present building activity, where arc welding has replaced riveting, where stainless steels, harder to cast, tougher, and harder to work, have replaced ordinary steels, and higher speed machinery with its demands for closer and closer tolerances is being specified, the government yards are more in need of new machine tools and equipment than at any period since 1917.
A recent resurvey of the yards confirms the need for continuing a yearly expenditure of $1,500,000. In fact, insufficient funds in 1932, 1933, and this fiscal year have caused the present priority list for new equipment to mount up to over $5,000,000. If such a sum should be spent on replacement, the average age of the tools upon retirement would be 25 years.
There is one situation which continually confronts those responsible for the proper functioning of the naval repair facilities in time of a national emergency. Good, accurate machine tools require time to season their parts before machining, time for careful machining, scraping, and fitting of parts together, and time for proper inspection of each piece before and after assembly. Cutting of any of these times short results in an inferior product, a product that ultimately will not produce the accurate, fine work which is demanded by the fighting machines of today. The more modern our navy yards are kept the lower their production costs and the fewer the number of machines that will be required from a market which undoubtedly would be greatly overtaxed by various demands in time of war.
It is understood that the machine tool industry is struggling under a very low rate of production. Whether or not P.W.A. funds will be made available to relieve this situation, or whether or not Congress will appropriate sufficient moneys this session for greatly needed normal machine- tool replacements remains to be seen.