the specialized parts. Throughout the country, although the track is of standard width, the loading or clearance gauge varies, and this difference is reflected in the differing accommodations of collieries, sheds, and platforms. It has been repeatedly said that the "permanent" type of construction of British railways precludes the introduction of larger rolling stock, but while there may be some truth in the argument with respect to the introduction of larger locomotives and passenger coaches, it does not apply to freight cars to an equal degree, and it is a larger type of freight car that the country most needs. "Permanence" in railway construction is almost certain to result in obsolescence; and this has been the experience in Great Britain, where structures are retained that would have been demolished long ago in less conservative countries. Difficult as the situation is, it would seem to present no obstacles that would deter a Rhodes or a Harriman.

In August, 1918, the House of Commons appointed a Select Committee on Transport to consider, among other things, the coordination of the internal transportation agencies of the country. This committee necessarily gave some attention to the matter of standardization of equipment. As a result of the activity of this committee a Government bill to centralize control over ways and communications was introduced on February 26, 1919, and this bill became a law on August 15. Under this act a permanent Ministry of Transport has been established. Coordination in railway working can now be effected, and this will certainly contribute to the solution of the problem of standardization of equipment.

ENGINEERING TRADES.

In British nomenclature the term "engineering trades" is used to cover a wide range of manufactures-structural steel, boilers, and wagons, machine tools, small tools, and instruments of precision, motor cars, agricultural machinery, sewing machines, pianos, and watches. The departmental committee appointed by the Board of Trade to consider the post-war position of this branch of industry was particularly impressed by the great number of small concerns engaged in the field and their failure to specialize on a limited variety of products. Indeed, it was found that "some of them. seemed to take a special pride in the number of things they turn out; whilst few of them seemed to be willing to contemplate buying at a cheaper price a component part from a rival manufacturer, even if they were permitted to do so by that rival." Furthermore, "no two manufacturers seem intentionally to produce precisely the same article." The contrast between Great Britain on the one hand and Germany and the United States on the other, is presented in the following paragraphs:

The system in Germany and the United States is widely different. There manufacturers work in as large units as possible. The number of patterns produced in each works is strictly limited, and the sale of the articles manufactured is pushed throughout the trade. One manufacturer may specialize on a certain article forming a part only of a completed product and other manufacturers requiring that part will buy it from him and not make it themselves.

In this country we have, except in the cycle trade, practically no one to compare with the component specialist who exists throughout the United

States. There is consequently a very large amount of unnecessary stock of different patterns carried throughout the country and made at a higher cost than is necessary. Workmen are constantly diverted from the manufacture of one article to the manufacture of another; much time is thereby wasted, and the change over from machines entails a considerable amount of machinery standing idle when the special article for which that tool is required is not at the moment being produced. This is a wasteful and costly process, which limits output and therefore decreases possibility of profit and high wages, whilst the absence of much repetition work prevents a system of payment by piece being largely introduced.

The witnesses admit that the present system of production in the engineering trades can easily be improved, and undoubtedly since the war there has been a considerable movement toward standardizing patterns, the specialization of output, the coordination of production, and toward the communication to each other by hitherto rival manufacurers of improved processes and methods.

* * *

Undoubtedly a considerable step has been taken in the direction of working in larger units-not necessarily in the nature of actual amalgamation of firms, but by subdivision of production. So far no practical steps seem to have been taken by any engineering association, with one exception, toward perpetuating the improvement which is now existing; but the recognition of the faulty system of the past is general and finds expression in conferences and resolutions. The desire for improvement in the future is very evident, and it does not seem beyond the capacity of the abilities of ordinary business men to come to some arrangement which may in the future improve production and eliminate waste. Where amalgamation may not be possible it seems to us that firms should in many cases be able to pool their resources. The chief bar to the attainment of this most desirable result is a characteristic at once admirable and obstructive. Whilst in Germany independence does not appear to be the leading characteristic of the manufacturer, in Great Britain the manufacturer's strong individualism imparts to him the desire to stand alone, and to be controlled by no one. In this he has been supported by the public, who think the assembled article lacks the guaranty of the manufacturer. It was undoubtedly the multiplicity of small manufacturers closely applying themselves to their trade in the past which produced the engineering trade as it exists in this country to-day. Conditions have, however, changed, and the progress and maintenance of the engineering trade depend a good deal upon production in future upon a large scale, with the minimum of standing charges and of waste. Under the head of preventable waste must be included the daily waste of effort involved in deliberate restriction of output by workmen.

Similar judgment was passed (December, 1918) by the committee appointed by the Ministry of Reconstruction to consider the possibility of developing new industries in the engineering trades and so lessen the dependence of the country upon imported products. It is here reproduced despite the fact that to do so involves some repetition:

It is also clear to the committee that in some branches of the engineering trades the industry has not kept pace with the up-to-date requirements of their customers, and that British users of machinery have in consequence been driven to purchase, against their inclination, the more modern foreign machinery placed upon the markets. In the opinion of the committee the principal remedies for this state of affairs are specialization and standardization. As regards specialization, the extent to which this should be adopted is clearly dependent on the magnitude of the factory. Large organizations can no doubt successfully cope with a considerable variety of work, but the smaller manufacturers should not attempt to range over large sections of the industry, as they do in many cases at present. They should confine themselves to manufacturing a few types of articles, which they would then be in a position to bring to a greater state of perfection and to produce more cheaply. The amount and rate of progress which can be secured by the adoption of such a policy are insufficiently appreciated, as is also the extent to which the position of a firm is thereby strengthened and consolidated.

Specialization leads directly to standardization of the product, first, because it is necessary to secure economy of manufacture, and, secondly, because the more extended experience with a restricted range of products brings out the best

methods of construction and manufacture. By standardization the committee does not imply the slavish adherence to a fixed design to the detriment of the introduction of improvements or of entirely new designs. On the contrary, it is anticipated that the combined policy of specialization and standardization will mean rapid progress, and the committee is also of opinion that manufacturers would be well advised to keep in touch with the users of their machines and to take advantage of any complaints or hints for their improvement that their experience may lead them to make. In standardizing, the conditions in different countries must be kept in view so that their requirements can be met without undue interference with the normal design by additional attachments or by the substitution of some minor parts; these additional or substituted parts could still be made in quantities. The adoption of standardization would greatly facilitate the supply of interchangeable spare parts. At present there is great difficulty in obtaining these in many branches of the trade. In connection with standardization, the committee wishes to emphasize the great importance of coordinating manufacture and design. The experience of the last few years has shown that the production of munitions of war has been rendered unnecessarily difficult by the fact that the Government specifications have too often been drawn up with little regard to the possibilities and requirements of workshop machine production. In many cases the specifications have had to be revised to meet this difficulty. The committee would, therefore, strongly recommend that in the future all Government designs and specifications, before being finally decided on, should be considered with the assistance of experts in workshop methods of production.

The committee wishes to draw attention to the fact that manufacturing engineers in this country were, to some extent, prevented from developing their businesses on proper lines by the personal fads and fancies of engineers in official positions, and by the practice among consulting engineers of insisting on individual designs, which unnecessarily depart from standard production. The result has tended to relegate our workshops to the manufacture of nonstandard products. In Germany and the United States of America the more general practice has been for buyers to specify broadly what they wanted and to leave the details to be worked out by the manufacturers, who thereby were allowed to develop on right lines and become more efficient, and the industry therefore was placed in a better position to do a world trade.

MACHINE TOOLS.

In both of these reports, particularly the latter, considerable attention is given to the needs of specific trades. In the case of machine tools we are told:

There are makers who specialize to some extent in this country, and with notable success, but speaking generally specialization is not carried nearly so far as in the United States, where makers manufacture milling and grinding machines and automatic lathes in large numbers and have secured a very large proportion of the trade. * * * In the case of machine tools it must be remembered that these are supplied to the British engineering trade, and that they have to stand the expert criticism of that trade. Cheapness alone is, then, not a likely explanation of the import of tools in such large quantities. The machines imported have mostly been of small or medium size. Small ordinary lathes have come in, even in peace time, in fairly large numbers, but, with the exception of two or three expensive makes, compare badly with the better British machines. In some forms of milling and automatic machines the American makers seem to be almost alone in the field. This class of machine is used in repetition work, and no doubt the much greater demand for repetition work in the wider markets open to American makers, the high rate of wages, and the freedom to use labor-saving machines in the United States have led to much greater development of this branch than here. Whatever may be the reason, there is no doubt that the American maker has thoroughly studied these types, and has set out to manufacture them in quantities that have not been touched in this country.

The situation, however, has been greatly improved as the result of the steps taken to meet the requirements of the Government

during the war. "Certain types of machine tools not made, or not adequately made, before the war have been developed to a considerable degree. The demand for machine tools of all sizes and classes has been so abnormal that subcontractors in large numbers have been pressed into their manufacture. The war has opened the eyes of manufacturers to the advantage of manufacturing large numbers instead of in ones and twos. Production in large quantities will, therefore, be made more common in the future."

MOTOR CARS.

* * *

To the American observer nothing is more striking than the number of horse-drawn vehicles to be seen in Great Britain; horses are still generally used by the railways, the brewers, the exclusive retail shops, and even by the post office. There are many reasons for this situation. Many of the motor cars were taken over by the Government during the war, the importation of foreign cars has been limited, primarily to conserve shipping, and this limitation has been continued, at least in part, for the benefit of the home manufacturers. But the home manufacturer has never been able to put out a cheap car because of failure to produce in quantity and along standardized lines. Consequently, says the Committee on the Engineering Trades:

The markets have been flooded with the Ford motor car as well as with other American makes of better quality, but all at prices that can not be touched by English makers for cars of the same size.

* * *

*

*

*

We instance the sale of Ford motor cars in this country, which, before the war, were sold at a retail price of £125. The manufacture of Ford cars is of itself a specialty. * * * Other cars, cheap but better finished, come into this country from the States, the low price being apparently the result of large production on standardized lines. There was not, before the war, in this country any known manufacturer who was turning out a five-seater car at £200 retail.

British manufacturers, apparently without exception, have aimed at producing a much better finished car, and have paid less attention as yet to the wants of the man who does not care for appearances provided that the car will run, nor have they been prepared to sink the very large capital in machinery and stock which is absolutely necessary for the production of a very cheap car.

The motor trade in this country is still not fully developed, and its selling expenses are still abnormally high, and until the car takes a normal place as an ordinary trade product, it will naturally be open to severe competition from abroad.

There are abundant signs that the British motor-car manufacturers are taking steps to meet this situation. One concern is perfecting a light car that is to be put on the market at from £195 to £212. The prospectus of another company declares that through mass production it is proposed to make a four-cylinder car to sell at £298. One manufacturer is specializing on a four-cylinder engine, and building 300 per week. There is also a company that is building car bodies in a converted aircraft assembling station and turning out at a price of £450 a finished car from parts produced elsewhere. The assembled car is certain to take a prominent place as soon as the industry becomes better adjusted to post-war conditions. Just now there are delays in delivery of needed accessories. It should, perhaps, be observed that according to American standards the prices quoted above are still far from "cheap."

BUILDING TRADES.

Standardization also has a prominent place in the current discussion of the housing problem. A committee of the Local Government Boards for England and Wales and for Scotland, which reported on October 24, 1918, proposed that certain standard shapes and proportions for doors and windows be adopted, and also suggested that baths, sinks, grates, and builders' hardware be standardized. As to the standardization of bricks, however, it was found that the opinion of witnesses was "divided as to its practicability," and the matter was dismissed as of slight importance to house building.

CHANGED ATTITUDE TOWARD PROBLEM.

In the foregoing pages sufficient evidence has been given to indicate that there is a growing appreciation that a new point of view toward modern methods is necessary if British industry is to prosper in the new situation that has arisen since the war. That the awakening has been long delayed is an indisputable fact. The obstacles are tremendous in the aggregate, but the unsatisfactory results of excessive individualism are so apparent that reform is certain to come. The Government is interested; and the Prime Minister has announced that a department of standards will be established to promote standardization in technical trade matters.