Brother Kelly of June number, page 529, is a man of heart and so much for a JOURNAL Directory not up-to-date: I do not know where Division 662 is located. In reading the current JOURNAL one must always have a back number of several months for reference when reading an article, obituaries, transfers, withdrawals or reinstatements. Not agreeing with my friend and Bro. Henry Hide of Div. 134, I will always feel a mistake was made when the Directory was abolished and twenty odd pages of advertising substituted. Advertising injures most all periodicals and newspapers of this age, as the people get disgusted and cut off subscription.

I was prompted to write a few lines after reading the May number which, in my opinion, is very good. The train orders of Brother Lenahan, Evans and Krause attracted my attention and notwithstanding my convictions heretofore announced, I will answer them and in return give them a couple.

Being a veteran of the war alluded to by Brother Kelly and indorsing his tone of letter as I do, I will say a few words along that line. I served two "cheap Johns" who were drawing a Division master mechanic's salary, but as to services rendered I would not make an estimate. One was a graduate of Purdue University, the other a vaudeville performer, when not engaged at a drill press. When installed at his desk the artist assembled the men in passenger service and said, "I wish to request of you engineers that when pulling your trains from a station that the reverse lever be set at full stroke until the mile board has been reached." Turning to the firemen, he remarked, "Now, you have heard my instructions to your engineers. Let yourselves be accordingly governed and have your fire in proper condition for such service with either a light or full throttle."

This identical individual once told me that were he superintendent of motive power he would remove all sand boxes from locomotives. I inquired, "In lieu thereof what would you recommend? Light trains or cog-wheels?"

66

Neither," he replied. "I would engage only engineers who could give the engine sufficient steam to pull her train and not slip the drivers." What I told him was entirely sufficient.

Not long after, however, I had the misfortune to throw a spring saddle on a two by three engine which fouled between top of driving box and frame and do what I would I could not release it. I put F. driver on tilton frog, also tried B. driver, but to no avail. Taking the sand lever, which was a small gas pipe, I put the "Keeley cure on the box and for 60 miles ran in cold, but in making a water tank the water got low and would run on the box, the last ten miles resulting in getting the Babbitt. Arriving at terminal, I brought the Nobbs in question to the pit track to explain why the engine was the roughest rider in the state, also to explain why the saddle had been displaced and to show the utter impossibility of freezing it. The engine was hung so high that her top frame rail carried the spring saddles and the pedestals carried the boxes on rough track. requested that her hangers be lengthened to admit of lowering frame two and onehalf inches. He said, "No, that must not be done, as the cellars are now only

I

of an inch from her pedestal braces." I replied, "Christopher Columbus on Cape Cod! You don't know your business." So here is where two years on the roughest riding compounds that were ever cast came to a speedy termination.

On another occasion I had to give up a train due to a series of ailments, principally six hot driving boxes and an engine which rode so rough as to shake her fire all through the grates. In making out engine failure report I said upon it, "This engine is fit for nothing but failures and to get somebody into trouble." This was a different M. M., but discharge was instantaneous; yet, while I was asleep, mutual friends interceded and I got sixty little Brownies all in one installment.

I could easily fill the columns of this JOURNAL with like experiences of myself and personally acquainted Brothers. It is for such treatment and from such

fixtures as I have described, who fire good men, cause trouble for the members individually and collectively, that we should close the columns of our JOURNAL against direct competition with the Scranton School and other grafts that we know of. Give us back the days of Sweet and Hackney, the latter who I believe turned out more genuine mechanics and saved his company more money than any man of his day or since; but in this day and age there are many places in this great United States where some two by four master mechanic will force an engineer out on a back-shop delegate, when perhaps if his heart could be read as is our JOURNAL, it would say, "May he melt the roof from her, have a collision, find a wash-out or burnt bridge." Then what report goes to his superiors and the stockholders? "That was pure carelessness on the part of the engineer and he has been discharged. That engine has just had temporary repairs to the extent of $1,500 or $3,000," as the case may be, such circumstances adding materially to the "shop record" of said official, accounting for material and work that was never done with any heavier tool than Faber No. 2.

Now, I do not mean to throw bricks or bouquets, so will shift gently to position 4 and return to 3 on this subject.

Now, Brother Lenahan answers correctly, but had the words, "supplement to current time table," been embodied in the order, then Brother L. would have to apply the 12-hour rule.

Of Brother Evans I would ask what clearance extras give first-class trains on his road? That will be the time firstclass trains must clear extra 90.

Of Brother Krause I will ask on what authority would he leave C? He certainly must not usurp the authority of a dispatcher and orders mean just what they say, nothing more and nothing less.

I wish to put a problem. Question No. 1: 66 Engine 100 will work extra between A and L 7 A. M. until 7 P. M., protecting against regular trains."

At 3 P. M. it is necessary to obtain a running order to R and return in order to

get coal and water; arriving back at working limits at 4 P. M., would you demand another work crder to finish out the day?

Question No. 2: Here is an order I once knew of between second-class trains, which resulted in hiring another dispatcher. I will substitute first-class trains, even numbers running east, and eastbound the ruling direction as per trains of the same class. A is western and Z the eastern terminal. Order No. 75: “No. 2 engine 100 will wait at H until 1:30 A. M. for first No. 1 engine 200."

Order No. 81. "No. W engine 100 and second No. 1 engine 300 will meet at H."

This later order was delivered to No. 2 at E and to second No. 1 at O. No. 2 arrives on time 1:20 A. M. at H, and second No. 1 arrives at J at the same time or later and finds first No. 1 in siding unable to make H on the time order of 1:30 against No. 2.

With no telegraph offices at H, I, or J, the road is not tied up, but which train has the right to go?

Hoping to hear more from Brother Kelly in the next issue, also to see less kindergarten work and more expressions of actual necessities and achievements, with best wishes to the fraternity and a postscript for everybody, will say goodby. Fraternally yours,

IRA D. MAYHALL, Div. 359. [It is a good thing to stop talking where one stops knowing. None of the space vacated by Division Addresses has been taken by advertising. On the contrary, it has resulted in 22 pages more of reading space, and this issue has 100 pages of reading matter, while our contract with our printers previously called for 70 pages. I will leave the Brothers to judge whether the 20 pages of technical matter is out of harmony with their wishes, and is a kindergarten in the interest of railroads and other corporations.-EDITOR.]

Turned Bushing, Etc.

PORTSMOUTH, O., Aug. 10, 1905. EDITOR JOURNAL: Please allow me space to answer Brother C. B. of Div. 129. He

has a right to return to D regardless of all extra trains keeping clear of all regular trains. A dispatcher cannot give two extra a run over the same track without some meeting point and, as Brother C. B. has the run the dispatcher cannot start another extra without first getting him at L.

In reply to Bro. J. V. Blasdel, of Div. 504, No. 433 cannot leave K without getting the meet changed or the arrival of second No. 434, the order annulling engine 601 as second No. 434 does not annul the train, any other engine could be run on the train on the same date. It is not really necessary to add the engine number to an order to a regular train, the train number is all that is required. When you get the annulment of a train on a certain date there is no engine number on it, so why is it necessary when the train runs and you get a meet with it?

Bro. P. M. Ford is off on his answer to Brother Keating's question. Brother Keating plainly stated that there was nothing wrong with the valve gear or machinery of the engine. I think Brother Keating should come out in the next issue and explain the turned bushing to the boys.

In reply to Bro. F. Thalmueller, of Div. 343. The reasons that when taking down one side rod on one side its mate must also come down is: When an engine is run with only one side rod up, the main driver has to drag the second driver with it by one side only; the second pair drivers therefore lags behind the main driver and as a result the latter passes the center slightly in advance of the former, which throws a heavy strain on the side rod and its pin, and both are very apt to be bent or broken. Take no chances; take both sides down and be sure.

Question I would like to ask through the JOURNAL: What is wrong with the air signal whistle when the cord in the coach is pulled to blow one long blast and the whistle blows a number of short blasts instead of one long blast? And again on the other hand, the cord is pulled in the coach to blow a number of short blasts,

and one long blast is sounded instead of the number of short blasts?

Yours fraternally,

E. A. LINDSEY, 584.

New Time Table-Train Rights.

AURORA, ILL., Aug 6, 1905. EDITOR JOURNAL: Referring to Brother Murphy's reply in regard to the Brother Krause order, will say, I presume that each and every one of us would balk before passing a positive meeting point, but I think we would be justified and commended, rather than censured, for not delaying a passenger train twenty or thirty minutes unnecessarily. Rule 201, Standard Code, reads: Orders must contain neither information nor instructions not essential to such movements.

It can be seen from this rule that such an order would not be issued. Time and space are too valuable to take with nonsensical questions, so we will drop this one and discuss sensible questions.

In taking up Brother Murphy's question relative to the new time table taking effect at 12:01 A. M. on certain date, I wish to call attention to Rule No. 4, Standard Code, and with this fully understood I think we will come to a common understanding in the matter.

Rule No. 4.-Each time table from the moment it takes effect supersedes the preceding time table. A train of the preceding time table shall retain its train orders and take the schedule of the train of the same number on the new time table.

To explain my view clearly we will suppose that on a certain road known as the D. E. & F., operated under Standard Rules, a new time table takes effect at 12 o'clock noon, Aug. 6, 1905. We will suppose that on a certain road known as the E. F. & G., operated under Standard Rules, a new time table takes effect at 12:01 A. M., August 6, 1905. On the D. E. & F. No. 1, a first-class train, is due to leave A, its eastern terminal, at 11:20 A.M., old time table, B 11:35, C 11:50, D 12:05 P. M. On new time table it is due to leave A at 11:35 A. M., B 11:50, C 12:05 P. M., D at 12:20. This No. 1 and No 1.

on the E. F. & G. are daily trains. No. 1 on the D. E. & F., although due to leave C at 11:50 A. M. August 6, must not arrive at D before 12:15 P. M. On the E. F. & G. (Brother Murphy's road) No. 1 is due to leave A at 11:50 P. M., B at 12:05 A. M., old time table. On new time table it is due to leave A at 12:10 A. M., B 12:25 A. M. No. 1 on the E. F. & G., although due to leave A at 11:50 P. M. August 5, must not arrive at B before 12:20 A. M., August 6.

It will be readily seen that No. 1 in either case can leave the respective stations at 11:50 old time table or wait there for the new time table to take effect, when the time would be exceedingly long to the next station.

It will be observed by the rule that the date of the train is fixed by the time table, and when this time table is superseded, the authority for the date of the train is also superseded, so there is nothing to prevent the train of the old time table from taking the schedule of the same number on the new time table.

Now, Brother Murphy, if you were on an extra leaving M at 1 A. M., August 6, the first act you should perform on arrival at your engine would be to throw the old time table in the firebox, forget all about its schedule, and be governed solely by the new schedule. This will avoid confusion. You will not happen to meet No. 1 at B at 12:05 A. M., August 6, because the following rule will not permit it:

Rule 92.-A first-class train must not arrive at a station where only the leaving time is shown more than five minutes in advance of its schedule leaving time.

You would not find a second No. 1 only in the regular way.

In reply to Brother Blasdel will say, annulling engine 601 as second 434, annulled that section of the train L to A, and gave 433 right to proceed. Second No. 434 of the same date could be run with engine 602, but the annulling order Iwould read thus: "Engine 601 is annulled as second No. 434 from L. Engine 602 will run as second No. 434 L to A." You will observe that this order would, not give No. 433 the right to proceed

from K without meeting second No. 434.

C. B., Div. 129, you have a right to return from any point between D and L on the order, keeping out of the way of regu lar trains. The dispatcher would not allow another extra between the points named in the order in either direction, until sending an intercepting order to you.

Referring to replies given in the August number to my question in the July num ber of the JOURNAL, I notice B., of Rochester, N. Y., has a doubt in regard to No. 6 arriving at I ahead of one hour and forty minntes, and keep within its rights. This is exactly the point that causes confusion. We find that the rule governing this order says that the order makes the schedule time of the train named, at and between the points mentioned, as much later as stated in the order. In my opinion, this gives but little ground for a misunderstanding. The order, in fact, gives the train an arriving and a leaving time. The leaving time is earlier than the arriving time, and there is no disputing the fact that a train has a right to leave a station on its schedule leaving time. The serious mistake made by No. 15 was in using the first movement in the order to make I. They were not entitled to that part of the order until arrival at I.

Fraternally yours,
JAMES LENAHAN, Div. 32.

Train Order Rights.

BLUEFIELD, W. Va., Aug. 7, 1905. EDITOR JOURNAL: Please allow me space in which to give my opinion as to what is right in regard to some questions asked by some of the Brothers.

In reply to Bro. J. V. Blasdel, Div. 504, No. 433 has a right to proceed only to her meeting point, for second section of train 434. Order No. 2 only annuls the engine number and does not annul the second section of train 434, and any other engine may be run as second 434 on the same date.

Bro. E. M. Murphy, if you leave Z at 1 o'clock A. M. on the 5th on an extra, you only have No. 1 of the new time table to

look out for, as No. 1 of the old time table had been dead 59 minutes when you left Z, and it would be impossible to meet No. 1 of the old time table at 12:05 A. M. on the 5th, because at 12:01 A. M. on the 5th No. 1 of the old time table lost all rights and class and could proceed only by train order. So in each case you would have to look out only for No. 1 of the new time table, according to Standard Rules.

Bro. C. B., Div. 129, a train order once in effect is good until fulfilled, superseded, or annulled; so under these rules you would have the right to return to D on your order if you wished, keeping out of the way of all superior class trains.

Train orders issued to regular trains are void after the train becomes 12 hours late. Yours fraternally,

B. S. LIGHT, Div. 448.

Train Rights Answers to Bro. Blasdel.

VIADUCT, PA., Aug. 7, 1905.

EDITOR JOURNAL: In reply to Bro. J.V. Blasdel, would say the rule for annulling sections is as follows: Engine 601 is annulled as second No. 434 from L. If there are other sections following, add “Following sections will change numbers accordingly." As your order said nothing about following sections, No. 433 would proceed on its own time and rights.

In answer to Bro. E. M. Murphy: No. 1 has no right to arrive at B at 12:05 A. M. of the 5th, as they are not due to leave A until 12:10 A. M. on the new time table which took effect at 12:01 A. M. If they could not arrive at B before 12:01 A. M. they should stay at A until leaving time on new time table.

If No. 1 should arrive at B at 12:01 A. M. of the fifth, they would have to stay there until leaving time of No. 1 at that point on new time table, and an extra meeting them there would have no right to meet another train of the same number.

Answering Brother C. B., of Div. 129, would say, an engine receiving an order to run extra from D to L and return is not required by rule to protect against opposing extras unless directed by order

to do so, but must keep clear of all regular trains as required by rule.

There is no necessity of giving this order in case there is an open telegraph office at both points and this order is not usually given where there are other trains running. Under the circumstances, I think you would have a right to come back in case of a breakdown.

Fraternally yours,

L. N. SAWYER, Div. 424.

Pay for all Time on Duty.

YOUNGSTOWN, O., Aug. 1, 1905. EDITOR JOURNAL: In reading our August JOURNAL I was more than pleased with Brother Kline's article, and I agree with the Brother in all that he has said. His statement in regard to what one engineer has worked in one month, has brought to my mind one injustice that the Brother has overlooked and one that I think that we are very lame on. I refer to the one hour and in most cases two, that is put in before starting on trip and the one hour after each trip. I cannot think of any reason why engineers are not paid for this time. Is it because there isn't any work to do in the two or three hours? I guess any Brother will agree that the hour or two that he puts in getting the engine ready is the hardest one on his trip-filling grease cups, hunting supply boy, and dodging yard engines, and trying to get your hands clean enough to handle the orders without spoiling them so no one could read them.

Is running an engine a trade? If so, is there any other trade that you can think of that the men come around from one to two hours before the pay starts to get ready to work? I would like to see engineers' pay start from the time they report at roundhouse and stop when they have finished making out their work report.

I would like to have Brothers' views on this subject. Keep after them, Brother Kline, you are on the right track.

Fraternally,

YOUNGSTER, Div. 452.