On November 14, 1878 the roadmasters of the Atlantic and Great Western Railway held a meeting in Meadville to discuss a variety of topics relating to the operation of the railroad. Among the topics was the use of Mogul and Consolidation engines. The following is a copy of the proceedings dealing with the use of these locomotives:
“The use of Mogul and Consolidation Engines as compared with other patterns.”
MR.FRENCH.–I consider the Mogul and Consolidation engine better adapted than the ordinary engines for hauling heavy trains over steep grades, but I think the ordinary engines are better for running the regular trips over a division. Mogul and Consolidation engines are very injurious to weak track; on good track their evil effects as compared with those of the ordinary engines are not so noticeable.
MR. BOWEN.–The Moguls exert great force on curves, their length of rigid wheel-base is my objection to them, instead of its weight.
MR. ALSOP.–There are no Mogul engines on my part of the road and I can therefore say nothing about them from actual experience, but I judge that they are harder upon track than common engines on account of their great weight, &c.
MR. MCINARNA.–The Mogul and Consolidation engines might do very well on roads fitted up for them with steel rail and first-class ballast, but roads with poor ballast and inferior quality of iron had better use the ordinary engine. If, however, these engines haul enough more cars to balance the extra expense on track they are preferable.
MR. BURGESS.–Moguls will do very well on straight line but they will crowd curves out of gauge and line.
MR. JOHNNEWHAM.–I should think it advisable to have a class of freight engines that can haul larger trains and not have to run two hundred miles with eighteen or nineteen cars pounding the track to pieces.
MR. E. COLLOPY.–With a good track of steel rail and well ballasted there is no question that Mogul and Consolidation engines are a great improvement on our present pattern of freight engines, as they haul five to seven cars more than the ordinary engine with the same number of men.
THECHAIRMAN.–This subject has been up before. Your crude opinions are all public, are all in the proceedings, and not withstanding their crudity they have led to a great deal of thinking and investigating. It has been a subject for discussion at the meetings of the officers of this road and you shall hear what has been said on the subject. It is the outcome of our discussions. I do not pretend that you are mechanics, but you are all sensible men and have opinions, and if your opinions present facts they are important. I find that they have not been without value.
[Extract front Proceedings of Meeting of Officers, April 23, 1878.]
MR. LATIMER.–I have a letter from Mr. Fry, Sup’t Motive Power of the Philadelphia and Erie Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad which might be practically useful. Mr. Fry says :
“Referring to the various remarks on Mogul engines, I should be led to infer from the unanimous feeling among your men that the particular engines you run are undoubtedly damaging to track. This is due primarily I think to faulty construction. From what your men say I suppose that there are flanges on the tires of all six drivers; if this is so it is a serious fault. The engines would curve more easily if the middle pair of wheels had plain tires without flanges. There is also possibly some defect with the truck which interferes with the free working of the engine, and possibly the tires, are put on too tight to gauge. It. is quite certain that an engine type which is successfully used on half the railroads in the country can be used on the Atlantic and Great Western if it is properly designed. I would suggest the advisability of your calling in my friend, Mr. Fuller, your Master Mechanic, to the next meeting and let him alter one of the Moguls to suit your curves. Your trackmen very properly speak of the engines from one point of view only, their effect on the track being all that they are conversant with. But a general officer must view the question from all sides. Now, if the statement of your Mr. Bowen is correct, the Moguls haul thirty-five cars to the ordinary engines’ twenty, this would mean that there would be 43 per cent. fewer trains if Moguls were used entirely than now, and as the cost of train service bears a direct ratio to the number of trains, there would be a reduction of 43 per cent. in that charge. Mr. Devereux’ report for 1876 gives the cost of train service $832,547.35. saving of 43 per cent. on this sum would amount to $357,996.20. There would also be a decrease in motive power expenses allowing each Mogul engine to cost 25 per cent. more for repairs than a common engine; still a reduction of 48 per cent. in the number of engines employed would give a saving of about $94,000. A decrease in the number of engines would save the Company the interest on invested capital, which in the case of the Atlantic and Great Western would amount to for every one hundred engines you own now (supposing fifty-seven to be able to do the work) $25,000, rating the forty-three engines you dispense with to be worth on an average $10,000 each, and interest at six per cent. per annum. These items are all large but many smaller ones will occur to every practical man. Fewer engines use fewer hostlers, wipers, watchmen, fewer or smaller round-houses, less cost for said houses in matters of heating, insurance, &c. In short if you look into this matter you will find that a difference of even say 10 per cent. in the power of the locomotives may decide the question as to whether a road shall have a deficit or substantial net receipts at the end of the year. It is therefore important to run engines that will haul the largest trains, and the necessity of a freer interchange of experience between the different departments is evident. A measure that would appear economical if viewed from one standpoint may prove to be disastrous when fuller views are taken.”
I will read also a letter from the Baldwin Locomotive Works in reply to a telegram sent them a few days ago for information. It gives precise data of cost of different engines manufactured by Baldwin. The letter is dated 20th of April and reads as follows:
“Your telegram of yesterday was duly received and answered this morning as follows: Consolidation 22,000 lbs. on each driving axle, ninety-seven hundred and fifty dollars. 18×24 Mogul, 22,000 lbs. on each driving axle, seventy-seven hundred and fifty dollars. 17×24 American, 23,000 lbs. on each driving axle, seventy-two hundred dollars. We beg to confirm above and give you below in tabular form a statement of the dimensions, weights and tractive power and prices of the three patterns of locomotives referred to. We give three sizes of the Mogul and three sizes of the American patterns. By same mail we send you copy of our Exhibit Catalogue which gives full particulars, on Pages 8 to 20, of both the Consolidation and Mogul types. We also send you printed copies of the performance of Consolidation engines on the Philadelphia and Erie Road, and of a light 16 x 24 Mogul engine. We may add that a Consolidation engine on the Susquehanna division of the P. & E. R. R. has hauled a train of empty cars one mile long, viz : one hundred and sixty empty cars, over that division, there being no grades exceeding ten feet per mile. The prices named are as close as we can make them without detailed specification and are the ruling prices for engines of the patterns and weights described. If you desire definite proposals hereafter with a view to purchasing we shall take pleasure in waiting upon you with same.”
My object, of course, was not to purchase but to get information.
Now in thinking over this matter I have asked myself certain questions and it occurred to me that the best way of expressing myself at this meeting would be to write out these questions and answer them ; hence I have here seventeen questions and answers, which I will read to you.
DATA AS TO MOGUL ENGINES.
1. Are the bridges strong enough for Mogul or Consolidation Engines ?
Ans. They should be, for the load per wheel is the same or less. The proposed Ohio State law requires that all bridges shall be proportioned for heavy engines.
2. Is the present pattern of rail heavy enough ?
Ans. Yes. The same pattern (60 lb. steel) is used on the Erie and all other roads using Mogul or Consolidation engines.
3. How many more cars can the Mogul engine haul than the present pattern ?
Ans. Fifty per cent. more. The load per wheel of the Erie Moguls being the same or a little more than our eight-wheel engines.
4. How many more cars can the Consolidation engines haul ?
Ans. Eighty-four per cent. (84 per cent.) more than the present pattern, or 22 1/2 per cent. more than the Moguls, the load per wheel being 1,000 pounds less, viz : 90,000 pounds in all, (11,125 pounds per wheel,) as against 49,000 pounds, (12,135 per wheel,) with the present type, or 73,500 pounds, (12,125 per wheel,) with Moguls.
5. What is the cost of our present American engine ?
Ans. About $7,500. Baldwin Locomotive Works quote $7,200 for engines with 46,000 pounds on drivers instead of 49,000.
6. What is the cost of a Mogul ?
Ans. About $8,100 for engines having 73,500 pounds on drivers. Baldwin Locomotive Works quote $7,750 for engines having 66,000 pounds on drivers.
7. What is the cost of a Consolidation ?
Ans. $9,750 for engines with 90,000 pounds on drivers. Baldwin Locomotive Works quote this price for engines with 88,000 pounds on drivers.
8. How many common engines do we now use ?
Ans. Upwards of one hundred.
9. How many Moguls will do the same work ?
Ans. Two-thirds of one hundred, or sixty-seven.
10. How many Consolidations will do the same work ?
Ans. 100/154 of one hundred, or fifty-five.
11. How many engines will we thus save ?
Ans. Thirty-three engines by using Moguls, or forty-five engines by using Consolidations.
12. What amount of money would thus be saved in capital interested ?
Ans. 100 engines of present type at $7,500 each cost $750,000; 67 engines of Mogul type at $8,100 each, cost, $542,700; 55 engines of Consolidation type at $9,750 each, cost $536,250 ; saving by using Moguls, $207,300; saving by using Consolidations $213,750.
13. What amount would be saved in engine repairs ?
Ans. $51,755 annually, as shown on accompanying tabular statement.
14. What amount would be saved in train wages ?
Ans. $144,940, as per accompanying tabular statement.
15. What amount would be saved in fuel and oil ?
Ans. $46,756, as per accompanying tabular statement.
16. Since fewer engines will be used and less weight in the aggregate pass over the line, how much should be saved in maintenance of Way ?
Ans. $51,726, as per accompanying tabular statement.
17. How much should be saved in engine houses ?
Ans. Only from one-half to two-thirds of. the present amount of room will be required.
ATLANTIC AND GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD.
Table of the Expenses Effected by Engine Mileage.
PRESENT STYLE ENGINE 45,000 POUNDS ON DRIVERS.
| Div. | No. Cars in Train Loaded | No. Trains of Freight Yearly | No. Freight Engine Miles Yearly | Expenses Maint. Way per year 17c pr. Frt. Eng. M. | Train Wages per year. 14c per Frt. Eng. M. | Fuel, Oil, &c., per year. 8 1/2c pr. Frt. Eng. M. | Maint. Loco. per year. 8c per Frt. Eng. M. |
| 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. Fr. Br. Mah. | 16 16 16 20 20 24 | 8,000 7,500 5,000 3,000 3,500 8,000 | 816,000 667,500 465,000 312,000 126,000 720,000 | $138,720 113,475 79,050 53,040 21,420 122,400 | $114,240 93,450 65,100 43,680 17,640 100,800 | $69,360 56,737 39,520 26,520 10,710 61,200 | 65,280 53,400 37,200 24,960 10,080 57,600 |
| W. Road | 18 | 5,833 | 3,106,500 | $528,105 | $434,910 | $264,047 | $248,520 |
USING MOGUL ENGINE WITH 67,500 POUNDS ON DRIVERS.
| Div. | No. Cars in Train Loaded | No. Trains of Freight Yearly | No. Freight Engine Miles Yearly | Expenses Maint. Way per year 23c pr. Frt. Eng. M. | Train Wages per year. 14c per Frt. Eng. M. | Fuel, Oil, &c., per year. 10 1/2c pr. Frt. Eng. M. | Maint. Loco. per year. 9 1/2c per Frt. Eng. M. |
| 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. Fr. Br. Mah. | 24 24 24 30 30 36 | 5,334 5,000 3,334 2,000 2,334 5,334 | 544,068 445,000 310,062 208,000 84,024 480,060 | $125,136 102,350 71,314 47,840 19,325 110,414 | $76,170 62,300 43,409 29,120 11,763 67,208 | $57,127 46,720 32,556 21,840 8,822 50,406 | $51,686 42,275 29,456 19,760 7,982 45,606 |
| W. Road | 27 | 3,890 | 2,071,214 | $476,379 | $289,970 | $217,471 | $196,765 |
SHOWING AN ANNUAL SAVING.
| Div. | Saving in Maint. Way | Saving in Train Wages. | Saving in Fuel, Oil. &c. | Saving in Maint Loco, |
| First Second Third Fourth Franklin Branch Mahoning | $ 13,584 11,125 7,736 5,200 2,095 11,986 | $ 38,070 31,150 21,691 14,560 5,877 33,592 | $ 12,233 10,017 6,964 4,680 1,888 10,794 | $ 13,594 11,125 7,744 5,200 2,098 11,994 |
| W. Road | $ 51,726 | $144,940 | $ 46,576 | $51,755 |
Total saving per year, $294,997
| 1st Division, 2d “ 3d “ | $77,481 63,417 44,135 | 4th Division, Fr. Branch, Mahoning, | $29,640 11,958 68,366 |
For the above table I use the following prices per freight train mile for the respective items, with the present style of engines:
17 cents per mile for maintenance of way.
14 cents per mile for train wages.
8 1/2 cents per mile for fuel, oil, etc.
8 cents per mile for maintenance of locomotives.
From a careful analysis made by Mr. Wellington we find actually cost as follows:
17.9 cents per mile for maintenance of way.
14.9 cents per mile for train wages.
9 cents per mile for fuel, oil, etc.
9.3 cents per mile for maintenance of locomotives. This cost is obtained by diving the annual Cost of the locomotive department by the number of revenue train miles, and is quite distinct from the cost per mile run by locomotives which includes a heavy allowance for switch engines and switching.
As seen, to allow for that portion of maintenance of way in yards, not effected by engine mileage, I have called the price 17 cents, which looks fair. For the same reason I have deducted .9 of a cent for train wages, .6 of a cent for fuel and oil, 1.3 cents from maintenance of locomotives, as this item includes watchman, wipers, &c.
The Mogul engines I have supposed to be able to draw 50 per cent. more than an ordinary one, and have increased the expense of maintenance of way per freight train mile about 33 per cent.; fuel. oil, &c., 23 per cent., and maintenance of, locomotives about 20 per cent., which I consider is ample. Train wages of course do not change.
The following table is only given as an approximation, as the items for its careful preparation are not at hand.
| Divs. | Present Equip’t of Frt. Engin’s | Equip’t of En- pines if Moguls are used | Capital Invested at pres’t. | Capital invest’d if Moguls are used. | Saving in Capital | Saving in Annual in- terest at 7% | Yearly saving as previous page. | Total. |
| 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. Fr. Br. Mah. | 25 20 14 8 9 24 | 18 13 10 5 6 17 | $187,500 150,000 105,000 60,000 67,500 180,000 | $145,800 105,300 81,000 40,000 48,600 137,700 | $ 41,700 44,700 24,000 19,500 18,900 42,300 | $2,919 3,129 1,680 1,365 1,323 2,968 | $77,481 63,417 44,135 29,640 11,958 61,366 | $80,400 66,546 45,815 31,005 13,281 71,327 |
| W. Road | 100 | 69 | $750,000 | $558,900 | $191,100 | $13,377 | $294,997 | $308,374 |
Total saving per year, $308,374.
In the answers to questions it is stated that sixty-seven Moguls will do the work. I think the estimate of sixty-nine is more nearly correct.
Now I will read one more letter from Mr. Fry. He says: “Referring again to your question about the effect of heavy engines on track, I beg to enclose copy of letter just received from the Civil Engineer attached to this division. A consideration of the facts given in this letter leads to the conclusion that the condition of the track itself, much more then the design of engine used, explains the discrepancies which exist in the cost of maintaining the track on the different sub-divisions. I am sorry that no two divisions have been in a condition near enough alike for its to use therein as a basis of comparison. As it stands now, comparing the track at Kane and Wilcox, where Consolidations have been worked for the longest time, the cost of keeping up the track is the cheapest, but here the rail is all steel; again, on Mr. Reynolds’ division of the small amount of steel laid in 1871 at two different places, although that run over by the Consolidation engines has worn out the fastest, we have to remember that it was not so well put down as the steel run over by lighter engines, and which has given better service.”
The Assistant Engineer, after giving the cost of maintenance of track between different points, says: “From the above it would appear that repairs were lightest on the track which had been used by the heavy engines. An explanation of this can be found in the following: On January 1, 1876, there was between Eric and Sheffield an average of 1,280 feet of steel mile to the mile; between Sheffield and Kane 3,960 feet to the mile, and between Kane and Wilcox all the track used by the pushers was steel. Where steel is laid, the renewing of rails, one of the large items in track maintenance, is very much reduced. As an illustration of the effect of heavy engines on the track as compared with the regular ten wheel road engines, the following is given me by the Superintendent of the Western Division: In 1871 two car loads, of the same pattern, steel, Penn’a., 56 lbs., was put into tile track, one between Sheffield and Kane, and the other just west of Langdon’s; to-day the former, used by the heavy engines. is very much worn, several mile having been already removed; the latter, used by the regular engines, is yet in good condition, although on a heavy grade, 70 feet to the mile, and has more engines pass over it daily. The better condition of the roadbed at Langdon’s has probably had something to do with this, but not all ; it plainly shows that the rail was “too light for the engine. If the track was laid with heavy steel, and the flanges of the drivers of a consolidation engine property arranged, I do not think the increase of wear on the track would be very great.”
I have one or two circulars to read which Baldwin & Co. sent. We have here something pretty near home, being particulars of the performance of the locomotive “Oakland,” constructed by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, in 1870, for the Sharpsville & Oakland Railroad Company. The “Oakland” is of the Mogul pattern, and of the following general dimensions: Cylinders, 16×24 inches; driving wheels, 4 feet diameter; weight loaded, total, about 67,000lbs.; weight loaded on drivers, about 67,000 lbs.; The letter, which appears printed in circular from, says:
“We have a gradient, rising toward the mines, of 83 feet per mile with a 2 per cent curve in it. This both parties to the suit agree to account equivalent to a gradient of 87 feet per mile on a straight line.
On this gradient, equal to 87 feet per mile, the “Oakland,” on July 3d, 1877, started from a stand-still, forty-five (45) empty eight-wheeled cars, weighing 669,500 pounds, or 334.75 net tons, and, without slipping her drivers, took the train up and beyond the gradient, something more than half a mile, gaining speed and steam as she went. She had 180 pounds of steam at the start; we had to open furnace doom to prevent undue increase of pressure.
“On July 12th, the same engine, standing below the train and pushing up the hill, and getting no advantage from the starting of one car after another as she might have done had she been hauling the train, started from it stand-still, on same gradient, eighteen (18) loaded eight-wheeled cars, weighing 829.36 net tons, and, without slipping her drivers, took them up and over the gradient, gaining speed and steam as she went. Steam 130 pounds at start.
“On the 29th May, 1877, same engine, pushing, started twenty-eight (28) loaded eight-wheeled cars , weighing 512.28 net tons, on a piece of track where the engine and tender and twenty-three (23) cars were on a gradient of 40.5 feet, and five care on a gradient of 54 feet per mile, and, without slipping her drivers, took them up over a gradient of 441 feet per mile for half a mile or more, gaining speed as she went. She made steam much more rapidly than she could use it, but by watching the steam-gauge, and varying the weight on the escaping valve according to the indications of the gauge, an uniform pressure of 125 pounds was maintained throughout this trial.”
Referring to the performance of Consolidation engines, Mr. Fry says, in a letter to the Baldwin Locomotive Works: “The large amount of work done by these engines in a short time shows that they do not need the constant repairs which some people assert such engines would require, it being a commonly received opinion that although ‘Consolidation’ engines may haul more cars in a single train than lighter engines they could not do so much work in a given time These figures leave no ground for such fears. The engines are hauling trains on the same schedule as our ordinary ten-wheel engines work on, and you understand, of course, that owing to fluctuations in traffic, we often have to run engines over our line empty or with half trains, so that the average train is very much below the usual load. The maximum load on a level division, with which we expect the men to make time, may be taken at ninety cars, though on one day we hauled 110 into Harrisburgh.”
Baldwin & Co., speaking of the Consolidation engines on the Lehigh Valley Road, say:
“On this division of the Lehigh Valley Railroad, over maximum grades of 126 feet per mile, the maximum load is 35 loaded four-wheeled coal cars, (329 gross tons of cars and lading), and the usual load, 25 loaded four four-wheeled coal Cars, (235 gross tons of cam and lading).
“On the same division, over a grade of 76 feet per mile, one of there engines draws a maximum train of 140 empty four-wheeled cars (476 gross tons) at a speed of eight miles per hour. Its usual train is 100 empty cars, (340 gross tons).
“On the Wyoming Division of the same railroad, from Sugar Notch to Fairview, the grade is one in fifty-five, (96 feet per mile), for twelve miles in length, combined with curves of eight or ten degrees radius. The curves are frequent , and there are but two tangents, each less than one mile long, in the whole twelve miles. Up this incline, engines of this class call take forty loaded four-wheeled coal cars. The usual train is thirty-five such cars, which are taken at a speed of twelve miles per hour. The cars weigh, each, three gross tons, eight hundred weight, and carry, each, six gross tons of coal. The weight of train, therefore, which a ‘Consolidation’ engine takes up the grade, combined with curves, as stated, is from 329 to 376 gross tons.”
MR. LATIMER.- I suppose one of the advantages of the present pattern of Moguls over our own is that there is no flange on the middle drivers.
MR. FULLER.-The middle flange has been arranged so as to go around tile curves just as easy as if there was no flange on the wheel.
MR. LATIMER-In that case then I should think it would be just as well to have it on. The agent of the locomotive company that furnished the Moguls, for this road was here a year or so ago and I talked with him about them. He said there were faults about the engines which were remedied in the present construction of engines. They are now made in different shape, so as to adjust the weight.
MR. FULLER.-Mogul engines are about all designed alike, but there may be a little difference in the construction of the truck in front. Mr. Stearns, General Superintendent of the Pittsburgh & Lake Erie has bought engines with cylinders 17×24 inches for that road.
MR. LATIMER.-He took the ground that long trains could not be well managed, and that there is danger of their breaking in two on curves. The question is which over-rides?
MR. PHILLIPS.-I think that in the matter of Consolidation engines some roads have gone to extremes. A train of eighty or ninety cars is too much. On the other hand, we have gone to extremes with light engines. If we had engines that would pull three or four more cars they would pay for themselves in a year. We pull so few cars that the prices we get for doing the business makes a very poor showing compared with other roads. If we had engines on the Third Division that could pull thirty care they would be the most economical engines to use. Now we are pulling only seventeen and eighteen cars, and it would be about the same as doubling our trains. Our engines are better fitted for passenger trains than freights. The wheel is too large. We want an engine like that of Mr. Goodwin’s, the “Oakland,” one that will go up our hills without taking a run for them. The Pan Handle ten wheel engines, with the same cylinder, pull four more cars than the eight-wheel engines, American pattern. The question is, which is the most economical ? I think the Consolidation engine will prove a failure in an economical point of view. Our own freight engines weigh thirty-eight tons, and I do not believe Moguls would weigh any more. They would not stall in these bad places and we put on two or three more cars.
MR. LATIMER.-What is the difference in pulling between our American and Mogul engines on the different divisions; the number of cars or tons?
MR. FULLER.-About four loaded cars. An eight-wheel locomotive, with 17×24 cylinder, will take nineteen cars over the First Division. The Moguls, 18×24 cylinders, will take twenty-four cars.
MR. PHILLIPS.-There is something very strange about this matter; we found that we could pull twenty-five cars with the Moguls, while the other engines took only seventeen and eighteen.
MR. FERRIS.-We pull 50 per cent. more with Mogul engines
MR. PHILLIPS.-It looks as if Mr. Ferris and I were pulling more cars than the other divisions. On the Fourth Division we pull twenty-seven cars, and on the Third, twenty-three.
MR. PITTON.-We tried twenty-five cars, but found them too much and had to take some off.
MR. FERRIS.-On the Mahoning Division a train of thirty or thirty-five cars is all we should haul. I do not think we ought to have a train any longer, it is all a crew can handle.
MR. PHILLIPS.-Our side tracks would have to be fixed for trains of that length.
MR. LATIMER.-I would like to have Mr. Dunbar state how many cars can be hauled on the Franklin Branch.
MR. DUNBAR.-Mogul engines, thirty-five cars; the others, twenty-four cars.
MR. FERRIS.-That is about the same proportion as on the Mahoning division.
THECHAIRMAN.-The First division seems to be a little off.
MR. FULLER.-If it was not for Pine Valley the engines could haul more cars.
THECHAIRMAN.-There is a good deal of freight taken up there and then filled out.
MR. FULLER.-How many cars do you take east of Pine Valley ?
MR. PITTON.-We take on from two to five cars extra.
THECHAIRMAN.-How many do the Moguls take?
MR. PITTON-Twenty-eight or twenty-nine cars.
MR. PHILLIPS.-The Objection heretofore to Mogul engines has been on account of iron rails and the speed at which they run. Now that we are getting steel rails and have a machine to regulate the speed, those engines will come into favor. A road like ours ought to have engines that will pull about fifty per cent. more cars.
MR. FERRIS.-There is fault in the construction of our Moguls, or something wrong with them. We could never rely upon them on the Mahoning division. We are using them in the yard and to run out as far as Randall. What size cylinder have they ?
MR. FULLER. Eighteen by twenty-four; they are all alike.
MR. PHILLIPS.-The length of the stroke makes a great difference. Those camel-back engines with eight drivers cannot pull as many cars up a grade as our eight-wheel engines, because they have not got the stroke. That shows the power. Mr. Sedgeley had ten-wheel engines built with a view of pulling more can than the eight-wheel engines of the same dimension and same size cylinders, but it turned out that the eight-wheel engines beat the ten. With the same power the ten-wheel engine had more to overcome. On a dry rail it don’t have the power to keep up the adhesion.
MR. FERRIS.-Engines 210 and 216, 17×24 inch cylinder, with four and one-half feet drivers, weight 73 000 pounds, pull two to four care more than the eight-wheel engines.
* * * * * * *
Exract from the Proceedings of the Meeting of Officers Held October 30, 1878.
Mr. Fuller said he had received a letter soon after the last meeting from Mr. Wilder, Master Mechanic of the Erie Railway at Buffalo, giving valuable information in regard to the work of Consolidation engines on that road. The letter was and is as follows: BUFFALO, N. Y., April 27, 1878.
William Fuller, Esq., Gen’l Master Mechanic A. & G. W. R. R:
DEAR SIR: In reply to Your letter of the 13th, inst. I would say: Our company decided in August last to place the Consolidation engines on the Buffalo division, and the first of these engines was received here November 22, 1877. Orders had been given for the building of sixteen of them, six from our own shop at Susquehanna, five from Danforth, Cooke & Co., and five from the Brooks Locomotive Works. Up to the present time I have received fourteen of these engines. These engines were all built from our drawings, and were copied after the Lehigh Valley R. R. pattern. They are four feet eight and one-half inches gauge, 20×24 cylinders, rigid wheelbase fourteen feet nine inches, total wheel base twenty-two feet six inches; weight, when ready for business, 100,00 pounds; on driving wheels, 87,550 pounds. Weight is distributed on driving in wheels as follows: On first pair, 23,600 pounds; on second pair, 24,000 pounds; on third pair, 18,500 pounds; on fourth pair, 21,400 pounds. The fire box is ten feet two inches long, thirty-three inches wide at grates, forty-six inches wide at crown sheet. Flues are two hundred in number, of two inches diameter and eleven feet one inch in length. Heating surface of fire box is 137 feet; of flues., 1,426 feet; total; 1,563 feet. Capacity of tender for water is 2,500 gallons, for coal eight tons. The engine has water grates, and calculated to burn anthracite coal, but we are using bituminous coal, as in our other engines. I cut off two feet from the grate surface by laying fire brick across the fire box at the flue sheet. I found that it was very difficult to keep holes out of the fire box at the front end without these brick when burning bituminous coal; the brick also help to make a combustion chamber.
When these engines came here all of the men in the train service were opposed to them on general principles, as for instance, should they prove a success, the number of men employed would be lessened. Again, it would make more work for the brakemen, as it is quite a different matter whether twenty or thirty-five cam be handled in a train. The engineers and firemen also had to be educated up to working these engines and at first they had not only to get over the prejudices they themselves had, but also to bear all the chaffing of the others. A few changes of men, however, soon broke this thing up, and as the men got educated to the business and we found out what changes were necessary to get the engines to steam so as to work them up to the full value of their adhesion, we had no further trouble. We have no Moguls on this division, but I will give you a statement of the performance of the Consolidation engines for the month of February last, as compared with that of the eight-wheel engines. The division on which we use them is ninety-one miles long from Buffalo to Hornellsville. The track is in good order; maximum grade is 1.05 in 100 feet, with curves of 2,000 feet radius. From Buffalo to Attica the grade is rising all the way, varying from eighteen to thirty-six feet per mile, and as we have a double track there they usually run that distance without any stop except for water. As they usually leave the yard late they make up all the time they can. The last fifteen miles are the heaviest, and the grade averages from thirty to thirty-six feet to the mile.
Our eight-wheeled engines, with 18×22 and 17×24 cylinders take twenty loaded cars as a trains. The Consolidation engines have been drawing thirty, and are now drawing thirty-five cars to a train under exactly the same conditions. That is, these engines run the rounds with each other first in and first out. They take their train to Castile, fifty-seven miles, where part of the engines turn and the others take double trains through to Hornellsville. When possible these engines are turned in their turn, as their time, when the others do, and under the same circumstances. So much for the performance of the engines; now for the cost or economy.
These engines run with the same cost for engineers and firemen, conductor and brakemen, per train mile as the others do; per car mile their saving in this service is forty-three per cent. Their repairs do not seem to be any more per engine mile than those of the other class of engines for engines in the same condition. Much of the expenses charged to them as repairs was for changes found to be necessary to make them steam with bituminous coal. For the month of February the cost for repairs was about the same as those of the other engines in the mine service, and in general good condition. This would make a saving per car mile, as stated above, of forty-three per cent. in the matter of repairs. In regard to stores these engines use one pound more tallow for the valves than the other engines, and about one pint more oil, for a round trip of 182 miles. For fuel these engines burned during the month of February last 3.9 pounds of coal per car mile, while the eight-wheeled engines consumed 5.2 pounds of coal per car mile. This shows a saving in fuel by the Consolidation engines of thirty-three and one-third per cent. In regard to track our track supervisor says that he cannot discover any difference in the track since these engines were introduced. They run readily around curves of 300 feet radius and into switches with no greater danger of derailment than other engines.
To sum up, these engines effect a saving car mile of thirty-eight per cent. over the eight-wheeled engines in the same service. I think that these engines also prove another thing, and that is that there is no perceptible saving in using a very wide fire box. These engines are competing with the widest kind of locomotive fire boxes, while their own are shallow and narrow. We get an evaporation of 6.25 pounds of water to one pound of coal, which is about the result shown by one of our eight-wheeled engines in an experiment made last summer in the use of coal. Yours truly,
F. M. WILDER,
Master Mechanic.
* * * * * *
MR. LATIMER.-Now, instead of finding the Consolidation and Mogul engines a failure, the evidence is overwhelming that they are a success. You can see that your discussions on the Mogul, unimportant and erroneous as it was, has produced a result. It is instructive for you to know the working of these engines; it is advantageous to you all, and it is an advantage to the road for you to know these things. I want you to look into this matter, or anything else that you think would be beneficial to the service. You may disabuse your minds of one thing; Mogul engines are the thing for this road.
MR. MCINARNA.-There is such a thing as getting engines too heavy for certain potions of track.
MR. BURGESS.-We used to have trouble with them on the Third division, but some engineers did better than others.
THECHAIRMAN.-Was it not on account of running faster than the others ?
MR. BURGESS.-No, sir, the trouble was in starting them sometimes they would pull out a draw-head or break a pin or link. They did good service on gravel trains. It took a good while to get them started out the pit, they would break in two, but after they got the train started they would keep it going.
THECHAIRMAN.-These discussions correct a great many errors which you have been laboring under. You have known facts now.
MR. WAINWRIGHT.-I think that twenty-five years hence one hundred ton engines will be used.
MR. THOMPSON.-I think it will be about a ten ton engine; the improvements will not be in increasing the weight, but in reducing it.
MR. BOWEN.-There is a good deal of difference in engineers. You take an engineer off a light engine and put him on a Mogul and he has great difficulty in starting that engine; he will probably put on too much steam.
MR. WAINWRIGHT.-But every engineer might to be able to learn how to use them in less than two weeks.
MR. BOWEN.-He tries to do all he can; it’s his delight knowing he is to remain on that engine; take another engineer who is to make only one or two trips with that engine, he does not know and does not care anything about it.
MR. WAINWRIGHT.-Engines are like violins. They may be made alike from the same pattern, and yet no two will work exactly alike.
THECHAIRMAN.-I believe that two engine built alike, with the same amount of water, same fuel, in the same weather, will do the same when first built.
MR. WAINWRIGHT.-One man sticks on some of our grades, others do not, the engines being the same build. Quality of water makes it difference.
THECHAIRMAN.-They may not use the same water. One will take hard water at one station and the other soft water at the next station; so there will be a difference soon in flues.
MR. WAINWRIGHT.-Engineer Feltsinger is never stalled at the Wadsworth grade. He hauls the same number of cars the others with the same class of engines. He goes through , and the others double.
MR. JOS. NEWHAM.-Engine 19, the other day, pulled out twenty-six loaded cars from the east end of Kent gravel Pit from a stand-still, and did not slip her wheels
MR. BURGESS.-An engine will sometimes get stalled in a pit with a few cars when, if you couple on ten more cars, she will pull them all. Engines on Third division are sometimes run too long without turning off the tires.
The meeting then adjourned Until 2 P. M.
[End of the discussion on Consolidations and Moguls]