the road and at certain points, perhaps at 50-mile distances, to discharge the sparks, and many devices which were brought out were quite successful. Later, the idea seemed to prevail that the extension was a nuisance, that it caused a great deal of delay, and that the same results would be. accomplished if the sparks were churned up enough in the front end to make them fine and then fired up with enough force to carry them up a good way in the air, so that when they came down all the fire would be out and there would be no danger from them, and that idea seems to prevail now, the idea being to make the front end as short as possible and get rid of all the sparks.

There has been a great difference of opinion with regard to the relation of the exhaust pipes to the stacks. I remember on a road with which I was connected earlier in my career, the superintendent of motive power was one of the early believers in standards, and among other things had a standard stack. It made no difference what the size of the engine was, one standard stack was adapted to them all, and he would point with pride to the fact that if any engine, large or small, came in and the stack was off, any other stack could be put on and it would be all right. I think that is carrying standards too far; but it proved one thing, although, perhaps, he did not think of it at the time, that many of the small locomotives would steam very much better when they were fitted with a stack adapted to the larger engines. I think one of the results of the investigation being made by the American Engineer will be to show that many of us, possibly all of us, are running our locomotives with stacks that are altogether too small, that by enlarging them we will get better steaming qualities: we will get a more even draft, we will throw less sparks out from the stack, we will throw less smoke, and the general result will be much better. On some locomotives which were designed and built within the last few years, it was thought when they were turned out that a 16-inch stack was a proper size. On the second lot of locomotives that was turned out we used shorter exhaust pipe and enlarged the stack to 18 inches, the result being improvement in steaming qualities, and since then I have been thinking that it would have been wise, perhaps, if we had gone further and put on those locomotives a 20-inch stack and made the exhaust pipe even shorter. I think the results of Prof. Goss's experiments show that even a 20inch stack on these same locomotives

would be too small, as the formula that he worked out from the experiments at Purdue for the American Engineer would seem to indicate desirable results from very much larger stacks than we have even dreamed of.-New York Railway Club.

Piston Valves.

MR. F. F. GAINES: I can not understand why the piston valve has obtained the popularity it now holds, nor do I think that such popularity is justified, or will be continued. In fact, I know of one railroad company which has discontinued the use of the piston valve after a thorough trial and will have nothing but slide valves hereafter. About the only advantage I have ever known of claimed for the piston valve that is substantial is the short ports, giving a less amount of steam in clearance than usually obtained by the slide valve. In the first place, it is very questionable, in my mind, whether this small amount of clearance obtained with the piston valve has all the advantage claimed for it, and I know of one case where a piston valve engine with small clearance had to have the reverse lever quadrant stopped off so that the engine could not be cut back beyond a certain distance on account of the enormous pressure developed in compression. Even granting that this small amount of clearance is desirable, we have offsetting this the fact that the new type of Wilson's American valve can be so designed as to give exactly as short a port as a piston valve, so that the only particular feature claimed for the piston valve can be accomplished with the balanced slide valve. Against the piston valves can be brought out the fact that they are very expensive to maintain, and that unless the bushings, or casings, are frequently rebored and pistons renewed, there is trouble with the packing ring, and no matter how good a job may be made when the engine is in the shop, it is absolutely certain that the piston valves, before the engine comes in for the next overhauling, shall be in bad shape. From personal experience I think that the piston valve is not as easy on motion work as a slide valve; at least, there is nothing in its favor. Possibly when in absolutely perfect condition there is a little less friction. The average of the piston valve is much higher than the average of slide valve, particularly balanced. Then again, in case of water in the cylinder, the only provision that can be made with the piston valve is to have relief

valves in the cylinder heads, or at some other point where the water pressure can be relieved. Theoretically such relief valves cover the situation, but after they have been on the road three or four weeks I doubt very much whether they would open under double the pressure at which they are supposed to lift, while with a slide valve, on account of lifting off the seat, relief is quick and positive.

MR. WILLIAM MCINTOSH: In regard to the expense of maintaining the piston valve, I do not agree with Mr. Gaines, for our experience with the piston valve has been quite favorable in this respect. We have found no particular difficulty in maintaining it. In fact, I have known of many locomotives to remain in service for two years without it being necessary to bore out the piston valve chambers There is, however, a vast difference in the kind of packings used for piston valves. The first ones with which we had experience did not work successfully at all, but the type of valve we have used during the past three years on our large engines has worn very nicely. There is, however, one difficulty about piston valves I am free to admit, and that is they are harder to keep in adjustment than the slide valve. There are more points to observe in refitting or repairing them, and unless gauges are provided and more than ordinary care taken, it is an easy matter to distort them. But that is more a matter of proper shop practice than any defect in the piston valve. Concerning the valves wearing out of shape, I think that all of you who have had experience with the slide valves, and we all have to a greater or less extent, will admit that the slide valve gets out of order too. We have all seen slide valves that were worn. There is a feature of the piston valve that is more favorable in my mind than the slide valve, and that is there is no trouble about keeping the steam chest in order, and there is a good deal of difficulty in keeping slide valve steam chests tightened up. I have paid a good deal of attention to this feature lately and I notice a great many steam chests of the slide valve type are leaking steam through the joints.

MR. WEST: I would like to ask Mr. McIntosh whether these locomotives, to which he refers and which have piston valves, are operated on practically level roads or where there are grades? I have understood that piston valves for locomotives running with the steam shut off were dangerous for a man handling the lever, whereas under steam they could be re

On

versed at almost any speed, and under almost any pressure. It seems to me that if this is a fact, and that if there is such a tremendous strain on the reverse lever when the steam is shut off, the strain must be very hard on valve motion. roads like the one with which I am connected, having over 50 per cent. in grades, a device that might be successful on a comparatively level road where steam is used all the time, would be a bad thing for a road with many grades.

MR. MCINTOSH: I have been on the locomotives many times and I have never noticed any difficulty in that respect, although I have heard complaints of the piston valves on the compound engines where high speed is developed causing some difficulty in moving the lever down when they are shut off. In fact, they found the same difficulty with slide valve engines is experienced when the locomotive is at high speed.

MR. G. W. WILDIN: I think that there is only one thing that can be said in favor of the piston valve and that is that it is, probably, pretty well balanced. On the other hand there are several things that can be said against it. In the first place, it is necessary to employ in connection with piston valves either a by-pass or a cylinder-head relief valve, both of which are usually out of order when most wanted. If a relief valve is used, it must be adjusted to withstand a pressure greater than that in the steam chest; that is, to a pressure in excess of what there would be as initial pressure in the cylinders. Otherwise it is always leaking steam, and when adjusted to withstand the initial impact of steam with a wide open throttle they are useless as a means of relieving the pressure developing from compression when the locomotive is "drifting" with the reverse lever notched back. The usual method followed in adjusting cylinder-head relief valves is to tighten them down until they cease to leak, and then give them a few more turns to be doubly sure, after which process they will accommodate variable pressures about as readily as a solid plug.

The piston valves of high speed locomotives require considerably more exhaust clearance than do slide valves on the same kind of locomotives, it is safe to say almost double the amount. This, of course, means an early release and a consequent loss of power.

Another objectionable feature of the piston valve is that it can not be lifted from its seat and so relieve the pressure

in the cylinder caused by compression when locomotive is running with steam shut off and with reverse lever notched back, the result being considerable pounding, especially if more or less lost motion is allowed to develop in the main rod and driving brasses. This does not hold good if the reverse lever is lowered to corner notch, which is impractical at high speeds. The relief valve does not come into play until compression has developed to a point in excess of the initial pressure of steam, but pounding will take place at a much lower pressure.

As to maintenance, it may be true that the actual cost is no greater than that for the slide valve, but it certainly requires greater skill in handling and a better knowledge of the functions each part is to perform in order to get the same results obtained with the slide valve; especially is this true where the built-up type of piston valve is used. I have found in a number of instances in engine-house work where the proper packing ring was not in stock, that in order to tighten the old one and make it do further service, a small cut would be taken from edges of the bull ring. Such work as this, while done in good faith, means that your valve proportions are being continually changed. With the type cited, which were inside admission, the operation added to both steam lap and exhaust clearance. It also requires that very accurate work in machining and locating the valve or steam chest bushings to prevent having unlike conditions in several engines of the same class. If a slight cut is taken more than should be in machining the steam chest at the works, you must necessarily make a special bushing to fit same, otherwise the distance between steam ports would not be just right and this trouble will continue as long as that particular cylinder remains in service. These troubles we do not have to look out for in slide valves. The distance between ports is never changed, no matter what the wear of valve and seat may be. A slide valve can be lifted from its seat and release compression, which at the same time obviates pounding.

Regarding the statement made by Mr. Gaines that the percentage of clearance is less with the piston than with the slide valve, I think that such is not the case. I think the most ardent advocate of the piston valve would be willing to rest his case if he could persuade the mechanical world that he had succeeded in reducing the clearance to equal that of a well designed slide valve cylinder. A type of

valve which I look upon as the logical successor to both previous types of slide valves and piston valve is one recently brought out by the American Balance Slide Valve Company. Because the top of this valve is removed, it may be made any convenient length, thus reducing the length of ports without adding much to the weight. As constructed at present, it probably weighs about one-half as much as the ordinary piston valve and the ordinary slide valve. Its most valued feature is its double exhaust ports which provide large openings and a free exit for steam. We are not concerned so much about getting steam into the cylinder as we are in getting it away after it is once used. The many bridges in a piston valve bushing certainly do not add anything to the ease with which steam will escape to the atmosphere, notwithstanding the fact that the total opening in the bushing ports may equal that of the slide valve or may, possibly, be a little greater. It is important to have the exhaust passages entirely clear; obstructions, though very small, have an important effect upon the performance of an engine. I had the privilege at one time of making a very interesting experiment along this line. A locomotive having 19 inches by 26 inches cylinders and 69-inch driving wheels was equipped with a 51⁄2-inch exhaust nozzle and a 4-inch variable bridge. The mere introduction of the bridge across the nozzle, at a speed of 45 miles an hour, reduced the total capacity of the engine 107 horse-power. We were also apprehensive as to just how the engineer would use the adjustable feature of the nozzle and we found, as might be expected, it was habitually left in the closed position, which would, of course, insure plenty of steam, it being the engineer's idea that plenty of steam in the boiler meant plenty of power in the cylinders; he disregarded the back pressure.

MR. R. S. FOWLER: About two years ago I had experience on one of the western roads near Denver, and was assigned to some test work with the piston valve and the slide valve. We began the test with the locomotive in first-class condition, just out of the shops, and had a nice load attached to it. After running over a division having one grade that was 52 per cent., we tried another locomotive that was in a pretty good condition and which was equipped with the slide valve. After working at the different figures of the test and the amount of load carried, we found there was a saving of 71⁄2 per cent. with the slide valve. On one trip

we had three more freight cars, and on the other trip four more freight cars, than we had with the piston valve; we had a much better load and it was a bigger saving with the slide valve than with the piston valve. The locomotives were equipped all the same except the valves. The valves were the only difference on them and they were especially equipped for this test. We were sent on this test to find the difference between the value of the slide valve and the piston valve. Whatever was the cause for the difference I do not know. I could not place the exact points where the difference was caused, but in the general result, calculated out, the head of the department claimed that there was 8 per cent. in favor of the slide valve.

MR. WAITT: I think, sometimes, that we condemn things without ascertaining just what the reason is, and I believe that the piston valve has been designed and is being designed in every way as satisfactory in its working as the slide valve, and I think if it is perfectly designed, and then after it is put on the road, being a new thing and being different from what the men have been accustomed to in the shops, different from what they have been in the habit of using, due supervision is given as to the way it should be maintained and to see whether it is taken care of properly and whether the men understand how to operate it, the same as we would with any new device that we determined should be a success, or ought to be a success, I think we will find in many cases where the piston valve is now condemned that it would then be all right. Many times, I think, it comes back on those who have the duty of supervising, as to the responsibility for failure or the gratification of success, and if we put a new device such as a compound engine, or a piston valve or anything else on the road, where men are not used to it and do not take care of it, and we do not instruct them how to take care of it and how it ought to be cared for, we may expect a lack of success. On the other hand, many times, something that has been condemned will be found very successful, simply because we have taken care of it and seen that those who have to do with the manipulation or the maintenance knew how to do it.-New York Railroad Club.

Employes Responsible for Accidents.

MR. WHITTED (Solicitor Colorado and Southern Ry.) I think, perhaps, 50

per cent. of the accidents which occur on the railroads, by which employes are injured, are caused entirely by the negligence of the men themselves; by that I mean, they are not due to faulty equipment; they are not due to the fact that we do not have automatic couplers; not due to the fact that drawbars are out of order not due to the fact that air brakes on the train are out of order, but they are due to the violation of the various fundamental railroad rules that every employe understands. I remember one of the most serious accidents that I ever had to do with was caused by the violation of a rule which is a cardinal one-as I am informed by those operating trains-that is, the failure of the rear brakeman to go back a sufficient distance to protect his train from an on-coming passenger train. The result was a collision in which the fireman had both of his legs cut off and was made a cripple for life. It were better for the employes of this country if the men who are thus careless could be punished under the criminal law. How to reduce that class of accidents is the question. We can reduce others, so far as faulty equipment is concerned, and statistics show that it is being constantly done. As you take away overhead obstructions; as you improve the quality of track; as you improve the condition of cars, trains and engines, these things reduce accidents; but how to improve care and caution on the part of the employe, that is the question. Now, I take it that the employes themselves owe a duty to the company. We do not hear much about that. All we hear is the duty of the company to the employe. I wanted to emphasize the reverse side this evening. I wanted to insist that employes have a duty not only to the company, but a duty to their fellow-employes. It is the lack of care and caution on the part of employes that causes most of the railroad accidents. Seemingly, in spite of all that can be done-in spite of all rules that we print and put in the hands of employesthey go out on the road, run trains together, costing the company thousands of dollars, and if an employe is injured on the train he sues the company-the company pays the bill, repairs or replaces the destroyed equipment, and nothing is said about the obligation of the men to the road. Is it not fair to consider once in a while this aspect of railroad accidents-that there is some duty, at least, on the part of the employe to the company? I have known of men being discharged from one company for

negligence, getting employment with another, working upon that road for a little while, running two trains together, getting discharged for that, and going to another. There is such a thing as a careless man in the operation of railroads, a man who is constitutionally negligent and indifferent. Now, that man ought to be blacklisted, if these is any way of doing it. He has no right to go from one company to another, injuring and killing men. Under the present state of the law you are not allowed to communicate to another company the fact that the man is incompetent and reckless.

MR. ROESCH: Now, to my mind, as a railroad man-one who has been out among them and has seen how these things work-one of the principal causes of the accidents is due to the desire of every man to be a good fellow with everybody else. If every employe of a railroad company was to report the negligence of his fellow employe to the proper official, this negligence would stop. I do not mean to say that every individual should be a spy on his fellow-servants, but I do mean to say that every individual should insist that his brother employe or his fellow-servant performs his duty as demanded by the railroad company just as well as he expected to perform it himself. Of all the engineers on the Colorado and Southern Railway that I can think of at present, and I know them all, there is but one man that I know of who insists absolutely on every man doing his duty as required by the rules. You take a man going out on the road; he sees a flagman ahead of him, probably on the tail end of a caboose; maybe he has a fusee; the engineer knows he can stop his train, and answers the signal. Now, that man, I say, should be reported, and I say the engineer has no right to answer that signal. The other day-only yesterday I stepped over a death-trap myself, simply for the failure of one man to do his work as he should have done; that was the work of the machinist. ported the matter, as that was my busi

ness.

I re

You take an engineer going out of here; he has to report some little defect about his engine; he thinks it can be fixed. The roundhouse foreman is also of the same opinion. The engineer fixes it —that is, before he goes out-and makes the proper repairs himself. Now, the engineer wants to be a good fellow; he does not want to say anything about the engine as he found it, because the man who was supposed to fix the engine might lose his job. A brakeman, climbing up the

side of the car, gets hold of the side ladder and pulls it down, simply because the lag screw was driven in instead of being screwed in by the car repairer. He says nothing about it and goes on. He is putting a premium on that man's carelessness. I think, gentlemen, if every one insisted upon the other man doing good work, and reported negligence on the other man, that these accidents would be reduced 50 per cent. or more.

MR. PARKER: I heartily agree with Mr. Roesch in this matter. If the man happened to go up the ladder while the train was in motion, he probably would have been killed. There is a difference between what we call tattling or giving away our fellow-men, and what also should be told for the information of the railroads on account of servants who may bring on destruction and death, and I quite agree with Mr. Roesch along these lines and I think it is most excellent to bring up illustrations of that character.

MR. WHITTED: When the question came originally before the English courts --that is, prior to the existence of the United States-whether, if one employe injured another in the common employment, the master himself being blameless, should compensate the injured employe, the English courts decided this question then on the reason of the thing, unaf- · fected by any statute. They said if two men were engaged in a common employment and one injured the other, in violation of the rules prescribed by the employer, that the employer should not be required to pay the man who was injured because his injury resulted from the negligence of a fellow-servant. The law stood that way for a long time, but as corporations multiplied and a larger number of men were employed in that way, these accidents wherein one man was injured by the negligence of another became more common than they were in a primitive state of society, in which these decisions were made. Consequently, courts and legislatures were frequently confronted with the question whether there should be compensation by the employer in such cases. The legislatures in many States compromised on the proposition, allowing a recovery in certain cases, and denying it in case of death except to the extent of $5,000. There is no reason, I think, why, if I employ two men and one injures the other, that I should pay the injured man, but there was such a large number of accidents happened in that way that the legislature finally allowed compensation in many cases. Certain or