This is on the general question of whether all orders concerning a work train are annulled at the time the working orders expire, either by the time in the order or by rule. This is the only rule we know of which has any bearing on the subject and it will be noticed that this directs the train to continue to protect; a provision on the side of safety.

There are different methods of interpreting the "right" order in the case of a work extra having right of track over other trains. Suppose the following order is issued:

"Engine 292 will work extra until 7 p. m. between Berne and Turin and has right over extra 296 east."

We will suppose Berne and Turin are one mile apart. We know one road where extra 296 would not enter the limits until 7 p. m., even if it saw the work extra on the siding. It would consider that the latter train had absolute right to the track over the extra until its order expired. We know another where extra 296 would proceed if it saw the work train clear of the main track, but not otherwise. On another road the extra would waste no time if the work train was not in sight, but would flag through the limits. We like the enterprise of the last mentioned road and believe that train movements can be facilitated very greatly in many cases by a little effort and the use of a red flag.

There are a few roads that require the working order to be addressed to all trains (or to all except first-class trains) and placed at either end of the working limits so that such trains may be advised of the presence of the work train. This does not, however, confer any additional rights on the work extra, but only serves to notify approaching trains.

Provisions in the Standard Code being so few, it is but natural that certain questions should arise in the handling of work extras, and we find a number of rules from different roads which answer some of these questions.

On a large western system where the time limit is fixed by rule from 6 a. m. to 7 p. m., we find the following:

Orders have been issued directing a train to meet a work train at a certain point and have not been executed when the working order expired, and the question has been asked whether the train should continue to wait for the work extra. A work extra has had orders to protect against an extra or regular train which did not arrive until the working order had expired, when a new working order was issued. Shall the work train continue to protect against the extra or may it continue to protect against the regular train? These are questions which we can not answer by rule and all we can say is to take the safe side, as indicated by the rule we have quoted. We think the dispatcher, in putting out orders of this kind, should include such provisions as will insure safety.

We quote another rule which we presume is the result of certain questions which have been raised.

"If a subsequent order to go to other parts of the road be received, the original order expires and must not be used again.

"In case orders should be given to a point outside of the working limits for water, fuel, or any other cause, and it be desired that the 'working order' should not be canceled, the subsequent order should state that the working order (giving proper number and reference) will remain valid."

The question has been asked if a work train should register every time it comes to a registering station, and we believe it is a general requirement. If its limits, for instance, are on both sides of a registering station, and this rule is adhered to, it will show at all times on which side the work extra is. Should an extra be started from such registering point this information would, of course, be essential.

We have seen, in the case of a work train which occupies the same limits for several days or weeks, what might be termed a “permanent" or "standing" work order. It is put out to all trains, or to certain trains, on each side of the limits, and is something after this manner:

"To all trains east except 1st class,

"A.

"To all trains west except 1st class,

"C.

"Between 6 a. m. and 6 p. m. daily, except Sunday, engine 292 will work extra between Berne and Turin and will protect against all except 1st class trains."

This may be varied, of course, by making the working limits between certain mile posts or defining them in some more specific way, also in the provisions regarding other trains. When the limits are short the work train can be given right over all but first-class trains, which will relieve it of flagging, but other trains will be required to flag through the limits. The question has been asked as to the proper way to extend the time limit or the working limit after the original order has been issued. We do not know of any authorized form either in the Standard or any other code. We have seen orders given in this form:

"To C. and E. Eng. 292.

"Your limits are extended to 9 p. m." We prefer, however, to send a new order, as it is according to the authorized form and gives less occasion for question.

With an order reading, "Eng. 292 will work extra until 7 p. m. between Berne and Turin," it has been asked if the work train can use the main track at both the stations named. For instance, supposing Berne to be the western limit and Turin the eastern, has the work train a right to the main line up to the west switch at Berne or to the east switch at Turin? Whatever may be the correct answer or whatever the general understanding we know of one superintendent who requires that work orders shall specify definitely what point on the main line is the working limit. Orders on this line are therefore put out in the following form:

"Eng. 292 will work until 7 p. m. between east switch Berne and west switch Turin."

The idea is to fix definitely in the order the exact place, and it appears to possess some merit, yet we think an understanding could be had as to what is meant if only the names of the stations are used, thereby saving time and words in many

cases.

For double track work the Standard Code provides that an order to work extra between certain points must be accompanied by one of four additions which are prescribed under D-Form H (Page 292, March Magazine). The first two indicate on which track or tracks the

train is to work and whether or not it is to protect against extra trains, the rule being that it shall protect against extras moving in the current of traffic unless relieved from so doing by the working order. The third addition gives it the right to work on the time of specified regular trains by protecting itself, and the fourth requires it to protect against trains which may be moving against the current of traffic.

We believe that, generally speaking, on double track, the simple work order is used and that it is understood to give the train a right to use the main tracks only in the proper direction between the points named. So far as each track is concerned, therefore, it is an extra, and governed by the same rules as an extra passing over the division, and if it stops on the main track is required to protect against all following trains, as per rule 99, which of course includes extras. The only advantage in a work order is that the train may run back and forth between the stations named (always on the proper track), or may use an intermediate cross-over if necessary. It confers no right to run in the wrong direction unless the order so specifies.

On "Mechanical Spotters." We wish to call attention to an article which appeared on page 530 of the May issue of the Magazine, reproduced from the Milwaukee Sentinel, entitled "A Mechanical 'Spotter' on the Engineer." The article states that on a run recently made of 88 miles, this machine showed the pop valve to have been opened 794 times, thus causing a waste of coal amounting to six

tons.

Now, we wish to ask how long that engine was in making the run. We have fired engines for about four years, have fired all kinds of coal, and we don't understand how in God's name it was possible to waste six tons of coal, as we don't think you could put more than that amount in the engine in that distance. We also wish to ask how the machine so quickly caused the decrease in this needless waste of steam and fuel? Of course, we are not trying in any way to discourage the inventor of this wonderful machine which we know must be all right.

We have a machine out here which we use very effectively to prevent steam from going to waste through the pop valve. Our machine may be somewhat of a "mechancial spotter" herself, but through

our blamed ignorance we have called it a "hog-head." Now, we don't want to take up room in the Magazine that would be more valuable for some other purpose, but we hope to become enlightened on this subject. E. A. CROWE, J. I. BRENNAN.

The Running Test.

A correspondent writes: "I wish to get some data relative to the "running test" of air brakes, and wish you would kindly reply to the following:

"Do your rules, or instructions, to enginemen require them to make the running test?

"What is your opinion of this test toward being a factor of safety, in connection with the handling of passenger trains?"

In connection with the most approved methods of operating air brakes on all trains of whatever class, passenger or freight, there is one test of the brakes that all air brakemen are agreed should be made, and that is the standing test.

Failure to make this test before leaving terminal stations, or stations where cars may be taken from, or added to, a train, or when any change is made in the make-up of the train should be considered by all concerned a serious disobedience of rules, and also a lack of good judgment on the part of the guilty.

The standing test is required to prove to the crew in charge, that the air is cut in throughout the entire length of the train; that the exact number of brakes working may be determined; that the piston travel of each may be known, and that if any defective brakes be in the train they may also be known, and be repaired, if time will permit, or may be cut out, so as not to interfere with the proper working of the others if they can not be repaired quickly.

No matter what the circumstances or the conditions may be under which trains are operated, the standing test ought never to be omitted.

Of the tests recommended to determine whether all brakes on a train are working or not, the standing test is the all important one.

To further safeguard against failure of the brakes to operate at a critical moment, it is recommended that a running test, or application, be made when approaching railroad crossings, derailing switches, meeting points on single tracks, and all places where the train could not

be run past the stopping point without danger of accident and damage, a sufficient distance back from the stopping point to enable the engineer to determine whether the air brakes will hold the train or not; and if not, to give him a chance to call for the hand brakes and to utilize any of the other means that he may have at his disposal to bring the train to rest before passing the stopping point.

This kind of running test should be approved by all concerned, although at the same time, conditions are such on many railroads that it would be well to investigate thoroughly the manner and the distance in which the test should be made in order to make the practice of this running test efficient.

What is generally understood as a running test for passenger trains, that is, a service application soon after the train is under headway after leaving a terminal and after having made a standing test, is, in my opinion, entirely superfluous and unnecessary, and may be productive of much harm.

As soon as the train attains a speed of 10 or 15 miles per hour the engineer applies his brakes to ascertain how they are going to hold, not that they are working -for the standing test proved that—but, as I view the test, he can not always obtain the information he wants; because the brakes may have a low percentage of braking force, and hold well when applied at slow speeds, and not hold satisfactorily at 60 miles per hour. And thus the running test might deceive, and this is what should be guarded against always in the operation of air brakes.

I once rode on the leading engine of a double-headed passenger train the brakes on which were in a deplorable condition, and when the running test was made, soon after leaving the terminal station, the brakes apparently held all right, and worked satisfactorily.. About ten or twelve miles from the starting point, the train had attained a speed of 54 miles per hour, and it was required to stop at a home block signal, the distance from the distant to the home signal being 2,900 feet; but the train could not be stopped at the home signal-it was stopped a few feet beyond by a large freight mogul-on account of the very low braking force on the train. Subsequent investigation of the brake force showed that the average braking force of the whole train was less than 30 per cent. of the entire weight of the train. And the running test of the brakes indicated that they would hold all right, but when wanted at the higher

Any slight leak from the supplementary reservoir or any of its connections is likely to cause failure of the cut-off feature in service application.

142. Handling the Engineer's Brake Valve Without the Cut-Off Valve Working.-"If the New York engineer's brake valve will not cut off the train-pipe exhaust in service applications, how must I handle the valve to get the desired results?"-F. J. M.

Answer. In case the valve does not cut off in service application, when you wish to close the train-pipe exhaust move the handle back to lap position yourself. If you are handling a 40 or 50-car train, this ought to be done rather slowly to guard against the possibility of releasing the tender or the driver brake.

On many switch engines the equalizing cut-off feature is purposely blocked, and the engineer controls the train-pipe reduction himself, thus securing a much quicker operation of the brake.

143. Operating New York Air Signal on Double-Headers.-"I would be greatly obliged if you would answer the following question through the columns of the Locomotive Fireman's Magazine:

"In the event of double-heading passenger trains, engines being equipped with New York Brake Company's air signal apparatus, is it customary to cut out air signal on second engine, and what is the practice usually followed?"-R. G. P. Answer.-Unless the train is very long, it is not customary to cut out the air signal pressure reducing valves on the second engine, in cases of double-heading passenger trains.

the second engine of a double-header does not cut the signal valve out on that engine.

144. Main Reservoir Capacity and Excess Pressure. "Does the size of the main reservoir cut much figure with the time required to get the excess pressure after releasing brakes and placing the handle of the brake valve in the running position?" -D. A. A.

Answer.-Yes; the capacity, or volume, of the main reservoir does make a difference in the time required to obtain the "excess," the larger the main reservoir the longer the time required by the pump to pump up the excess pressure. And now that air braked trains are longer, and main reservoirs correspondingly larger, than formerly, it is worth while to devote some time to the study of the effect of main reservoir capacity on the operation of the air brake.

Train Rules and Train Practice.

Answers by H. A. Dalby.

89. Not a Good Order. "We are working under the Standard Code and receive Order No. 1, 'Engine 3 will run extra Raceland Junction to Schriever and will meet extra 198 east at Schriever.' After arriving at Schriever and waiting on siding for extra 198 (which did not arrive) I get Order No. 2, which read as follows: Engine 3 will run extra Schriever to

Morgan City.' I claim I have no right

as

to leave Schriever until I meet extra 198 was going west and both trains were of the same class, as east bound trains have right of track and Order No. 1 was not fulfilled.

"Mr. B. claims Order No. 1 expired by limitation and I was not supposed to look out for Engine 198. Who is right?

The satisfactory operation of the air signal on very long trains depends largely on the way in which the pressure reducing valve operates, and it has been found necessary in some instances, where the trains consisted of 15 or more passenger cars, averaging 70 feet in length, to choke down the feed in the pressure reducing valve, so as not to destroy the wave effect in the signal pipe, or the discharge of air from the car discharge valve before it reaches, and operates, the signal valve, a thing which is likely to happen, due to the pressure reducing valve feeding in air to the signal pipe too rapidly.

It should be remembered that cutting out the signal pressure reducing valve on

question before and have given it as our opinion that there is nothing in Order No. 2 which would require extra 3 to wait at Schriever for extra 198, though as a matter of safety we think the conductor and engineer should inquire as to the whereabouts of extra 198, lest some one had made a mistake, which is, of course, possible.

In the first place, Order No. 1, as held by extra 3, is not entirely proper, for it expires on their arrival at Schriever. There is no object in giving a train an order to meet another train at its destination. This order must have been put out for the benefit of extra 198, which probably had orders to run extra from Morgan City to Raceland Junction and, of course, could not run through the ter