8.

For driveway between two tracks.....35 ft. The distance between track centers where the driveway is located between tracks, should be ten feet greater than the width of the driveway.

9. The spacing of tracks, where multiple team tracks are built, may be fixed by regulatory bodies, but it is recommended that the minimum distance between track centers be 13 ft.

10. Stub-ended driveways serving team tracks should be avoided. Where team tracks are more than 20 cars long (per single track), intermediate connecting cross drives should be provided. In large team-track developments where exceptionally long tracks are provided, cross drives should be introduced so that 14 cars per track is the maximum length between any two drives.

11. The maximum width of a freight-house driveway should be sufficient to provide for trucks backed up to the freight house at right angles and to leave room in front of the truck for two trucks to pass.

12. Freight-house driveways should be of the following minimum widths for the various conditions indicated:

(A) With tailboard on one side..........

(B) With tailboard on both sides..

..47 ft. ..70 ft.

The committee confined its work to the subject: Study and report upon the disposition of track scales. which have been removed by reason of inadequacy, obsolescence or inaccuracy.

The following are stated as the possible methods of disposing of a track scale which has been removed. for the causes stated: 1. Sell as scrap metal after being rendered unfit for further use as a scale or parts thereof. 2. Retain for use as repair parts of existing scales of the same type and size. 3. Retain for working over the parts into motor truck and other similar scales. 4. Re-install in a new location. 5. Sell as scrap metal in the same condition as when removed from service. 6. Sell as a scale in the same

condition as when removed from service. 7. Repair and sell as a complete scale.

In considering these various methods of disposition, it is immediately evident that method No. 1 requires no comment in this discussion, except to the effect that it is entirely proper and justifiable. The same comment applies also to method No. 2, except that, obviously, the necessity for so utilizing the old parts will gradually diminish with the decrease in the number of obsolete track scales retained in service. As to method No. 3, examination of the motor truck scale specifications adopted by this Association in 1923, will at once indicate the practical undesirability of this method.

In discussing method No. 4 it was stated that the railways in general have expressed their views as to what sort of track scales they desire to install when a new scale is necessary. This choice is represented by the 1920 track scale specifications of the American. Railway Engineering Association, which specifications have become, through general acceptance, the standard track scale specifications of the country. There is no record of any serious criticism during the past seven years of any section of the present standard specifications. Then, since both the railways and the general public have so universally accepted the present track scale specifications, the question is pertinent as to how a railway can consistently justify the installation by itself of a scale

which does not embrace the details which have been accepted as being correct.

The discussion of methods 5, 6 and 7, evolved around the theory that if it is false economy for a railway to install a so-called "cheap" scale, then it is also false economy for an industry to do likewise. It therefore appears that the railways should encourage the installation by industries of "standard" scales, and, as a means to that end, should so dispose of their worn-out and replaced scales that such scales will not fall, either directly or indirectly, into the hands of industries, the managements of which, misled by the low first cost, may easily believe that the installation of such scales will result in ultimate economy.

From this standpoint, the committee stated that methods 5, 6 and 7 are entirely devoid of merit, and that a definite recommendation to his effect should be adopted.

CONCLUSIONS

[Chairman J. E. Armstrong (C. P.) presented the report and his motion that the wording in the Manual as to gradients for passenger ramp be amended was carried. He also moved that in all parts of the Manual where reference is now made to three-second minimum weighing time, the value be changed to four seconds.]

G. D. Brooke (C. & O.): Does that apply to plate fulcrum scales as well as other scales?

Chairman Armstrong: Yes.

Mr. Brooke: What speed would that give for a big plate fulcrum scale?

H. M. Roeser (U. S. Bureau of Standards): The You know the length of the rail, you know how fast the speed could be calculated from the length of scale. car would travel to get across the scale in two seconds. It would depend on the length of the car, too.

Mr. Brooke: If this recommendation is adhered to, you cannot improve the capacity of your hump by improving your scale, can you?

Mr. Roeser: I do not believe the weighing time cuts down the operation of your hump, it is too small a portion of the time. If you were humping cars to conform to their weighing time, you would be shooting cars over the hump, 15 cars a minute.

[The motion was carried, following which H. L. Ripley (N. Y. N. H. & H.), chairman of the subcommittee, presented the report on passenger terminals, and L. L. Lyford (I. C.), subcommittee chairman, presented the report on freight terminals, both of which were received as information. C. H. Mottier, subcommittee chairman, then presented the report on driveways and moved that it be accepted as recommended practice and approved for publication in the Manual.] L. Brousseau (C. N.): It seems to me that the recommendation in Conclusion 10 is somewhat premature and deserves further study before being incorporated as a conclusion. It is noted that the committee found difficulty in locating team tracks with sufficient density of traffic, resulting in a large amount of delay. In another part of the report it is stated that the number

be revised or shall the existing line be electrified?" The answer cannot be given offhand but the problem is subject to an economic solution. This solution involves certain steps. The grade revision must be designed and its cost calculated. The performance of steam locomotives on the revised grade must be determined and the best combination of train weight, speed and distribution of trains selected for the expected amount of traffic. The total cost of steam operation on the revised grade, including operating expenses, depreciation, taxes and interest on the new investment, may then be estimated. On the other hand, the cost of electrification of the existing line must be calculated, the performance of electric locomotives determined and the best method selected for handling electrically the expected amount of traffic. The total cost as defined above of electric operation of the existing line may then be estimated and compared with that for steam operation of the revised line and a conclusion drawn on an economic basis.

The Manual gives a method for determining steam locomotive characteristics, and performance in service. The designers of electric locomotives are in a position to supply characteristic curves for any type and size of electric locomotive. From these characteristic curves, the detailed locomotive performance in service can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. The committee feels that a method of determining the service performance of the electric locomotive from its characteristic curves will be useful information for the Association to have in its records, and stated that the preparation of this information, together with typical examples of its application, is in progress.

Appendix B-Increasing Tonnage by Reduction of Grades, or Introduction of More Powerful Locomotives

The main elements to be considered in this problem are those of the general problem, viz.: Revenue, expense and investment. There may be presented the present alternative of doing several different things: (1) Get more powerful engines; (2) Reduce grades; (3) Increase the number of main line tracks; or (4) Improve the signal system and yard facilities. It is evident that any one, or a combination of these four alternatives, may be advisable in a given case. The first two, it is evident, are not necessarily alternatives. In certain cases both may be resorted to simultaneously to advantage. Thus it may pay Thus it may pay to reduce the grades, assuming no increase in the power of locomotives. But a further computation may show that with the grades so reduced an additional saving may be effected by the use of heavier locomotives.

The most general form of the problem is probably -which expenditure, if either, should be made first. ADVANTAGES IN THE USE OF HEAVIER LOCOMOTIVES TO HANDLE AN EXISTING TRAFFIC

These are:

(1) Their purchase is easily financed. (2) Their total cost may be assumed as approximately the same as the cost of a greater number of smaller locomotives to do the same work. Similarly for repairs and renewals. There is no necessary increase in the permanent investment in equipment or in repairs and renewals of same.

(3) In many cases it happens that the cost of

be required.

(5) The lengthening of passing and certain yard. tracks. This disadvantage also applies to lengthening trains by reducing grades.

ADVANTAGES OF GRADE REDUCTION VS. HEAVIER LocoMOTIVES TO HANDLE A GIVEN TRAFFIC

As compared with an increase in the size of locomotives to effect the same reduction in the number of train miles, grade reduction has the following advantages:

(1) No increase in investment in equipment.

(2) Reduction in operating expenses due to saving in engine repairs, and renewals, and in fuel and water, provided the rise and fall is also reduced as it usually is.

(3) A future possible saving, assuming that additional main tracks will be needed in the not distant future, and that it will later be necessary to reduce grades.

For, if second, third and fourth tracks are added. on the present grades, and later it becomes necessary to reduce grades (probably involving also changes in line) the amount of work thrown away, and to be charged off the investment, will be much greater than if the grade had been reduced in the first place.

A moderate grade reduction will not save as much on certain classes of trains. They may be entirely unaffected by it. These are passenger trains, local and package freights, and certain fast freights in some cases.

Estimated cost of grade reduction should include the lengthening of passing tracks, and new bridges, when necessary, should be constructed so that they may be ultimately used for heavier power, at a minimum of additional expense. If additional tracks will probably be needed, there is an advantage in grade reduction. The question of the permanency of the proposed route must be considered before going to heavy expenditures on a given line.

BEST GENERAL Rule

Make a careful survey of present conditions, a forecast of future conditions and careful computations of the savings to be effected on each alternate plan to fit the present or future assumed conditions, and compare results. As there must necessarily be many important conditions that cannot be accurately forecasted, a good deal of judgment must be used. It is recommended, however, that the computations be made first and judgment exercised afterwards. The whole computation, if the conditions can be correctly forecasted, is a matter of computing the greatest net earnings on the money to be permanently invested.

It is pointed out that if the decision is made that

It

a grade revision is the answer to the problem the work should be done as promptly as possible for the reason that this country is expanding rapidly, construction costs are rising, and for the further reason that municipal and private improvements will make a proposed change more expensive if delayed. should also be borne in mind that in some cases permanent improvements such as grade separation projects will be demanded on the existing line, which improvements may become entirely useless when the new grade line is constructed.

Appendix C-Locomotive Capacity, Giving Special Attention to Oil Burning Locomotives

The data in this appendix pertain entirely to the locomotive booster, and were prepared by W. H. Winterrowd. It is given in abstract in the following.

From a perusal of the various items that go to make up the total operating expense of the railways, it will be observed that the majority are affected directly by power. Thus power must receive primary consideration in any analysis in which the object is a reduction in the expense.

The locomotive booster is a simple, double-acting steam engine, having 10-in. by 12-in. cylinders. The power from these cylinders is transmitted through crankshaft and gears to the trailer wheels of the locomotive, or to the wheels of the front truck of the tender. The gear ratio between the booster and the trailer axle is 2.57. The control used in conjunction with the booster is of the semi-automatic type. In order that the booster may be put in use it is merely necessary that the main throttle of the locomotive be open and the booster latch on the reverse lever be lifted, so as to open the reverse lever pilot valve. The control valves then permit steam to enter the cylinders to idle the booster, so the booster gears idle and intermesh, open the main booster throttle and finally close the cylinder cocks, thus permitting the booster to deliver its maximum power.

At the present time four types of boosters are being manufactured and are in use. These types are the "C-2-L," "C-2-S," "D-1-L" and "D-1-S." Both of the "C-2" types are for locomotives of standard. gage. The "C-2-L" booster has an average cutoff of 75 per cent stroke, while the "C-2-S" booster has a cutoff of 50 per cent stroke. These two types of boosters are applicable to either the trailer or tender

of the locomotive.

Inasmuch as all track in this country is of standard gage, only the type "C-2" booster will be considered. From many tests on various railways and on our test plant it has been possible to obtain the drawbar pull, horsepower, mechanical efficiency and water. rates for the booster. It has been determined from the various tests that the "C-2-L" booster will deliver the drawbar pulls derived from the following formula, in which the numercial factor takes into consideration the mean effective pressure, drop in pressure in booster inlet line and the mechanical efficiency of the booster.

the numerical factor taking into consideration the same items mentioned for the “C-2-L.”

The power which is developed by the booster as supplemental power for the main engine, makes it possible to start and haul greater train loads on any grade. The booster is one means of obtaining greater power per locomotive unit, thereby making it possible to increase train loads and thus decrease unit costs. The other means of obtaining greater power is through the medium of additional drivers, which of necessity causes an increase in locomotive weights. increased train load it will sometimes be found that Because the booster makes it possible to handle an

a locomotive with a less number of drivers and the booster may be used in place of the more powerful locomotive. This reduction in the number of drivers will show substantial economies in locomotive maintenance, while the use of the booster will increase locomotive maintenance by only $0.005 per locomotive mile, a very small proportion of the locomotive maintenance expense for any type of engine.

On one road it was found after several years that the business delivered by the connecting lines could not be handled in one train unit with one Pacific type locomotive, as was previously the case. It was, therefore, necessary to either double-head or use heavier engines to handle the business in one train unit. The road naturally chose the last mentioned method and substituted a Consolidation type locomotive for the Pacific type which was in use. several years of operation with the 2-8-0 type locomotive a study of the operation was made, which revealed that the cost of locomotive maintenance with the Consolidation type was $0.30 per locomotive mile, while with the Pacific type it was $0.19.

After

A study of the local conditions relative to the use of a booster on the Pacific type showed that train loads were based entirely on starting on the maximum grade. The supplemental power of the booster as applied to the Pacific type locomotive gave the same starting power as the Consolidation type locomotive. At a speed of 8 m.p.h. there was a slight deficiency in power with the booster-equipped Pacific type locomotive. At a speed of 25 m.p.h. the Pacific type locomotive developed greater power than the Consolidation. The booster was therefore applied to the Pacific type locomotive. The service rendered was the same with both the Consolidation and booster-equipped Pacific, but in using the Pacific type equipped with the booster the maintenance cost of the locomotives for this service was reduced from $0.30 to $0.195 per locomotive mile, a saving of $0.105 per locomotive mile attributable to the booster.

In another instance the traffic on one sub-division of a railway had increased to such an extent that the trains being brought from the first division into the terminal could not be carried over the second division

in one unit, and therefore a greater number of train units were necessary for this division than for the first division. It was realized that a locomotive with

greater power would handle greater tonnage per train unit and thus reduce the number of necessary train and locomotive miles. A study was made to determine whether or not to use a 2-10-2 type locomotive or equip the existing Mikado locomotive with the booster. It was found from this study that whereas the existing operation was costing $0.734 per 1,000 gross ton miles, the estimated cost of operation with a 2-10-2 type locomotive handling 500 additional tons per train unit would be $0.642 per