of air is necessary, 20 pounds of air should be admitted to the fire for each pound of coal burned. One pound of air fills about 13 cubic feet at ordinary temperature; so we have 13 multiplied by 20, equals 260 cubic feet of air needed for every pound of coal burned.

The Westinghouse Air Brake.

Answers by F. B. Farmer.

821. Emergency Application Speed.-"How many brakes per second will apply in emergency application with brake pipe and auxiliary reservoir pressure of 90 pounds, and how many per second with brake pipe and auxiliary reservoir pressure of 110 pounds?"-C. J. S.

Answer. With the ten-inch cylinder freight brake, the II or old standard quick action triple valve and 70 pounds brake pipe and auxiliary reservoir pressure in the first second after moving the handle of the automatic brake valve to emergency position 13 brakes have applied, in two seconds 33 have applied, and in three seconds 50 have applied. The rate of application is the same with brake pipe and auxiliary reservoir pressures of 90 or 110 pounds.

In the tests with which the foregoing results were obtained the test rack equipment consisted of the fifty freight car brakes as previously mentioned, known among air brake men as Schedule HC1012 (each brake had 40 feet of 11-inch brake pipe) engine and tender equipment and a G-6 brake valve. The latter is the Westinghouse brake valve that was standard before the ET equipment.

Train Rules and Train Practice.

Answers by G. E. Collingwood.

565. Annulling an Extra Train-Check on Delivery of the "19" Order.-"The following order was issued to train No. 849 at A: Order No. 1, No. 849 will meet extra 450 south at D.' When No. 849 arrived at B it received Order No. 2, reading, 'Extra 450 south is annulled Z to A.' Is Order No. 2 proper? Or should the dispatcher have annulled the 'meet' order? It is contended that as the extra has no schedule the dispatcher might start another extra 450.

"(2) What check is kept on the delivery of '19' train orders?"-M. McQuaig.

Answer.-Order No. 2 is a Form K order and it is improper to use a Form K order to annul an extra train, for the

reason that the form is only for the purpose of annulling a section or a schedule. The only way an extra train can be annulled is by annulling its running orders. That is, an extra has no schedule but it has a right, and it follows that whatever takes away that right annuls the extra train. For example, Order No. 3, "Eng. 188 run extra A to H." If it is desired to discontinue extra 188 from B, an order may be placed at B, reading, "Order No. 3 is annulled." This takes away the right of the extra to run and effectually "annulls" it. In the case under consideration Order No. 1 should have been annulled, after which No. 849 would not be further concerned with extra 450. But the annulling of extra 450 with a Form K order does not give No. 849 any authority to disregard its meeting point with the extra.

(2) Under standard practice there is no actual check kept on the delivery of the "19" train order. On roads where the train order signals stand normally at block the "19" order is simply sent to the operator, addressed to the train for which it is intended, and after "complete" has been given the operator must personally deliver the order, except in cases where the delivery to the engineman will take the operator away from the immediate vicinity of the office. On roads where the normal indication of the train order signal is "proceed" the operator is required to say, "Stop displayed," after which the order is sent and delivered in the same manner as above. But in either case there is no check on the delivery of the orders; the rules simply require the operator to deliver them, and unless he reports that he has failed to deliver them it is taken for granted that he has delivered them.

However, on some roads a clearance card is used, with the delivery of "19" orders, on which is shown the individual number of each order delivered. The operator must enter the numbers on the clearance card, after which they are repeated to the train dispatcher and receive his "OK" before they are delivered. This method furnishes a partial check on the delivery, or at least on what the operator expects to deliver.

566. Schedule Fulfilled.-"No. 60 is a second class train running from A to Z. Extra 285 is moving from Z to A and makes H for No. 60, but is unable to get clear on the siding at that point. When

No. 60 arrives at H, which is a blind siding, it finds that extra 285 has not time enough to back up to I and clear No. 17, so No. 60 backs up to G to let the extra pass. When No. 60 is ready to proceed does it require an order to run extra from G to H? It is only two miles from G to H."-Member 559.

Answer. When No. 60 arrived at H it had fulfilled its schedule from G to H, and if for any reason it is required to flag back to G and make a second trip from G to H it must have an order to run extra or as a section of some regular schedule. Schedules, unless fulfilled, are in effect for twelve hours after their time at each station, but when a schedule is fulfilled it ceases to be effective and therefore furnishes no protection for any train. The distance being only two miles from G to H, it is probable that No. 60's train could make the second trip to H without mishap, but it would be contrary to good judgment and the rules to do so.

567. Operator Should Not File "31" Orders. 'Eng. 477 run extra A to C and meet No. 14 at C.' This order was issued to No. 14 and operator at C, on a '31' Form. When extra 477 arrived at C the operator filed the order and took in his order board. Was the operator justified by rule in doing this? Should not the order have been a right of track order? The operator claims he filed the order on the authority of the following rule: 'An order held by an extra train or by another train concerning an extra train, or issued for an extra train, becomes void when such extra train expires by limit of time or place.' "-H. O.

Answer. If the order issued for No. 14 had been a "19" order I would agree with the operator, but being a "31" order Rule 214 distinctly states that before "complete" is given the order must be treated as a hold order for the train addressed, but must not be otherwise acted on until "complete" has been given. This rule effectually blocks any action on the part of the operator with respect to a "31" order.

The order should not have been a meet order, as that order should only be used when the trains are actually to meet. It should have been a right of track order or a wait order.

568. Orders Must Be in Same Words to All Addressed. "Is it good practice for the dispatcher to issue a long order and then give to each train only the portion of the order which affects them? Is it a violation of Standard Code principles to do so?"-G. R. B.

Answer. It is improper, and therefore bad practice, to give to each train only that part of an order which affects that train. Improper because Rule 202 provides that each train order must be given in the same words to all persons or trains addressed. Regardless of the rule, it would be bad practice to issue orders in that manner for the reason that the record at the train dispatcher's office would not show what each train held, and in case it was necessary to change certain movements an error might develop. Then, on roads which place a middle order with the operator at the waiting or meeting point to be delivered to the first train arriving, the copy received from the operator would not correspond with the copy held by the train, although the order numbers would be the This would at least result in con

same. fusion.

569. Run Ahead Until Overtaken.-"Referring to Form B, example 4, form of train orders of the Standard Code; does this example restrict the speed of No. 3, which, we assume, is a first-class train, to the speed of extra 65 west? Extra trains are restricted to twenty miles per hour."-W. E. M.

Answer.-Example 4 of Form B reads as follows: "Extra 65 west run ahead of No. 3 B until overtaken." The only explanation given is that extra 65 will run ahead of No. 3 from B until overtaken and there arrange for the rear train to pass promptly. My understanding is that No. 3 will run with such caution as will prevent accident with the first named train. If the speed of the first named train was limited to twenty miles per hour and the second named train could not exceed such speed, then it would appear that the words "until overtaken" would be of very little use, as such words in themselves imply a faster rate of travel.

570. Change of Time-Table.-"On timetable No. 78, train No. 10 is due to leave On its initial station at 11.30 p. m. time-table No. 79, taking effect at 1 a. m. August 11th, No. 10 is due to leave its initial station at 12.01 a. m. Can No. 10 of August 11th run?"-Member 449.

Answer. No. 10 of August 11th can not run. No. 10 of August 10th may start on the old time-table, but at 1 a. m. August 11th it loses both right and schedule, for the reason that the schedules do not correspond as to day of leav

ing.

That is, No. 10 of the old timetable is due out of its initial station on August 10th, and is therefore a train of August 10th, and the only schedule which it can assume on the new time-table is a schedule of August 10th, under Rule 4, which requires schedules to correspond as to day of leaving. The new time-table shows No. 10 due out at 12.01 a. m. August 11th, so there is no schedule of August 10th for No. 10 to assume and it thereby loses both right and schedule. A train can not be run on schedule No. 10 of the new time-table until 12.01 a. m. on August 12th, for the reason that on August 11th it is due to leave its initial station at 12.01 a. m., which is fifty-nine minutes before the new timetable takes effect, and the new time-table

can not authorize a schedule (except when schedules correspond) until after it is due to leave its initial station after the new time-table takes effect, which, in

this case, would be 12.01 a. m. August

25, No. 4 has right over No. 1 E to C.' No. 1 is the train of superior direction. Has No. 4 any more right to go to the station at C than an extra, or a freight train would have? There is a yard at C within yard limit boards."-G. H. B.

Answer. The order gave No. 4 right only to the first entrance switch within the yard limits at C, where an inferior train would take siding for a superior train. It is generally understood that the right of a train in a case of this kind expires at the first entrance switch unless special instructions make an exception to it. On the other hand, No. 1

was not restricted by the order until it reached the switch at C, where an inferior train moving from E to C would take siding at C for a superior train.

The right conferred on No. 4 was simply between E and C and not at C in any case, and No. 4 was in duty bound

to take the first entrance switch reached

within the yard limits at C, unless special instructions or custom designated some other switch as a proper place for an inferior train to take siding for a superior train.

The persistence with which some academic theorists ensconsed in luxurious offices protrude on the reading public distorted views, ill-founded assumptions and baseless conclusions relative to lines of human activities and fields of effort in which they have had absolutely no practical experience would be amusing were it not that some take them seriously.

The mechanical continuity and monotonous sameness of the perfunctory criticisms of railroad employes and their labor organizations, in which the Railway Age Gazette and other official railroad publications indulge, reveals a singleness of purpose to condemn, irrespective of the merits of the case, that is devoid of reason, bereft of justice and sadly lacking in argument. These gentlemen have become so accustomed to ascribing to the employes and their organizations responsibility for all the evils that beset railroad operation and for all the obstacles that tend to obstruct successful management, that it would not be surprising if some of them would yet come to attach some credence to their own statements along these lines.

The most recent expression of this kind that has come to our attention is an oral utterance credited to S. O. Dunn, editor of the Railway Age Gazette, before the twentieth annual meeting of The Traveling Engineers' Association, recently held in Chicago. Mr. Dunn, so the report says, was pessimistic in his view of the high cost of operation of railroads, and declared that if

"Something was not done soon there would be great danger of a car shortage that would cripple all commerce;" also that "the decreased earnings of the railroads in the past two years are responsible for our present condition."

He then reveals his paramount motive in making such a groundless assertion by suggesting as a remedy that overworked, stereotyped, cut and dried nostrum of the professional labor crusher, viz., that "increased efficiency of employes would go far towards relieving this danger." That Mr. Dunn, in making such a statement, wandered from the realm of truth to find a pretext upon which to assail the employes, is to be inferred from the fact that all recent reports on the subject of

railroad earnings show greatly increased profits.

The earnings of a few roads were possibly affected by the unusual severity of the winter of 1911-12 and of others by floods during the spring of 1912, and of still others in two or three instances by strikes; but reports show that, as a general proposition, the profits of the railroads of the United States and Canada not thus affected have of late been greatly and steadily on the increase. As to recent railroad earnings we have the following from monthly railroad financial reports:

"Ninety-nine railroads representing 188,188 miles of road, as against 185,565 miles a year ago, out of a total of about 250.000 miles reporting for the month of July, show an increase of 9.90 per cent. in gross earnings and an increase of 11.77 per cent. in net earnings."

The evolutionary argumentative process and the brilliancy of logical deduction through which Mr. Dunn thus saddles on the erring employe the responsibility for the car shortage is clearly the product of an intellectual sublimity in comparison with which that of the Sages sink into dim insignificance.

The car shortage, of course, is occasioned by increased business, and just how increased efficiency on the part of employes could in any way check the growth of business- - could remedy the shortage or obviate it is, we must confess, beyond the grasp of our benighted comprehension. With all due deference to the brilliant intellect that hath thus deduced, we must hold conflicting views until a flash of its effulgence has so dispelled the darkness of our understanding as to permit our convincing ourselves that said deduction is within the realm of reason.

Put Blame on Firemen Alone. Thoroughly consistent with Mr. Dunn's attitude towards employes generally and characterized by about as much reason and common sense is the assault made upon locomotive firemen by other speakers-traveling engineers-at the same meeting, who declared, in substance, that if the firemen would do their work right there would be no smoke evil. We would here suggest that smoke abatement crusades are at present on in many cities and that public officials and others, who never engaged in the work of firing a locomotive for a living and have absolutely

no technical knowledge on the subject, have been endeavoring to convince the public that in the case of locomotives coal can be burned without making smoke. Nor that alone, but that to accomplish this purpose it is only necessary for locomotive firemen to make up their minds to do so and for locomotive engineers to co-operate with them in the effort.

The report of the meeting says that one F. G. Boomer declared that

"The entire trouble is the fireman. If the fireman would do his work right there would be no smoke evil. Get good men and the evil stops."

Oh! what depth of lore, what weighty wisdom, what keen technical insight, what overpowering command of his subject was thus displayed by Mr. Boomer and his confreres who gave expression to similar thoughts. If there are amongst these gentlemen any who really believe that the firemen and not the laws of nature, and frequently bad coal, are responsible for such of the smoke nuisance as exists despite the fireman's efforts to abate it, we would suggest that they avail themselves of a little practical experience in the premises by taking the fireman's place for a short while under varying circumstances and demonstrate, if they can, that the fireman is. at fault. To any of these gentlemen who would succeed in making such a demonstration we will surely attribute and proclaim the possession of supernatural qualifications. That firemen as a class are doing everything that human capability will permit of in abating the smoke nuisance is a fact to which all will bear testimony who properly investigate the matter and are willing to tell the truth about it. On the other hand it may be that new firemen from lack of experience, may now and then cause an engine to emit unnecessary smoke within city limits; and we would suggest that these traveling engineers would make their efforts felt much more effectively in the interest of all concerned by giving the proper attention to such individual cases rather than by endeavoring to dispose of the matter through such a general unfounded, reckless and wanton charge against firemen in general. No work is more laborous, more dangerous, more fraught with hardship and at the same time more responsible than is that of the locomotive fireman; nor is there any class of men who bear their burdens more manfully or who more cheerfully