Received for tJllbliralion Februmy 28, 1964 In the early years after the war, instrumentation within the British Sugar Corporation was very sparse, and consisted mainly of indicating and recording thermometers, pressure gauges, and steam flowmeters with an occasional juice meter. There were also a few industria l pH meters used mainly on 2nd carbonation and thin juice , but these were anything but reliable. All factory equipment was old and consisted mainly of a series of batch processes which did not lend themselves to automatic control. In the early 1050's B.S.c. embarked upon a large reconstruc tion program to modernize its factories. Each year one or more factories were chosen to replace old batch plants with modern, continuous machinery. Beet-end equipment was the first to be replaced, and with continuous diffusion and continuous carbona tion, the opportunity arose to increase the instrumentation. Instrumentation at that time was the prerogative of the Works YIanager (Plant Superintendent) at each factory with guidance from his Technical Supervisor, and the Chief Engineer, but there was no over-all instrumentation program. It was not until 1955 that a Control Fm);ineering Department was formed with the purpose of designing, specifving and coordinating the instru mentation throughout the Corporation. The 'Vorks Manager still had the final word, but was now advised by a department which quickly amassed a wealth of experience and know-how. Thus, when a new projecl was progTamed, the 'Norks ,Manager would discuss the instrumentation ' with the Control EnQ'ineer who could advise on proven practices at other factories, and would then engineer the scheme at Central Offices. The choice of the instrument manufacturer would depend to a large extent upon competitive quotations, but with a view to standardize as much as possible at a particular fa ctory. This presented no problems with the first schemes as all the important instruments were nevv, but in later years the aim 'Ivas to keep the number of manufacturers represented to a minimum, and still allow competition. It was felt that standardization taken to the ultimate of one manufacturer only, would be detrimental to the factory, particularly with reqard to service. In addition, some pieces of equipment were considered to be better made, or in