Search Documents

ASHBEL WELCH, Lambertville, N. J.: Dr. Dudley has given the wear of steel rails under four different conditions. He arrives at the conclusion that the softer rails, or those that from their composition ought to be softer, wear better than the harder. But there is another condition which has an important bearing on the subject, and should not be overlooked,—the weight on a wheel. With the lighter weights of the past, the softer rails may have worn best; with the heavier weights of the future, the harder may wear best. Weights will probably be increased up to the capacity of steel to bear; then doubtless the harder steel will wear best. A leaden rail with ten pounds on a wheel might carry millions of tons, but with one hundred pounds on a wheel, it would be destfoyed by a few thousand tons. So in the days of iron rails, my experience was that the softer rails under light machinery stood better than some of the harder; but under heavy machinery the softer were muqh the most rapidly destroyed. It is doubtless the same with steel. The pounding motion of the wheels loosens or spreads the particles of a thin film of steel; the pull lengthwise on the rail de-

Jan 1, 1881

By William Metcalf

William Metcalf, Pittsburgh, Pa. : In rising to discuss Dr. Dadley's paper, I feel somewhat as I did at the Baltimore meeting —that a "crucible" man has no right to interfere in a "Bessenier" discussion; yet having read the paper very carefully, I feel impelled to say something, for two reasons: First, because I believe Dr. Dudley is entirely on the right and having undertaken and partly accomplished a great work, he .is entitled to the help of all who have experience in these matters; and second, because the data given force me to colicur in Captain Jones's opinion that the analyses are incomplete, since they ignore sulphur, copper, nitrogen, and possibly other injurious elements. In an experience of fourteen years, and with probably more than a hontlwl tests, we have never found the chemistry and the of crucible steel to disagree. If in any cave a disagreement tins sp- . peared, it has been our invariable custom to go over all our physirtal testa with great care, and if we found no error, then to refer the matter back to the cherubt, who has invariably found some unexjmted element to account for the trouble. It is only just to the chemist to say here, that ordinarily be is only expected to determine phosphorus, silicon, sulphnr. Generally the metals, with the exception of manganese, are not looked for, although a watch is usually kept for copper and arsenic. Further, in most cases we have found our own work more liable to be faulty than the chemist's. Having arrived then at such a degree of experience that we can preJict the analysis from our tests, or our tests from the analysis, with almost absolute certainty, I can see no reason why the same results map not be attained in the Bessemer practice. But two things are essential, neither of which we have here; first, cornplete analyses; and second, a record of the nature of the blow, the heat at which the ingots were bloomed, and the mile finished,—in short, a complete history of the This latter is quite as essential as accurate and complete analyses. Dr. Duclley ignores sulphur and copper on fair enough grounds commercially speaking, bnt when he announces so gmve a conclusion as he has reached, in a scientific way, the omission of any elementn that, may affect the conclusion is hardly justifiable. His diEerenvcs of phosphorus units, which I milst term units of rottenness 83 fr os phosphorus is concerned, and which I am sorry be did not llama wnits of alloys,—are very small, and if eulphur and copper hod been inclurlid they might havo upset hie conclusions sitogether, The

Jan 1, 1881

By C. B. Dudley

bas shown us that the railroads of this country can save several milt liohs a par by adopting uniform rail sections, and as unfortunately for him, he cannot patent his idea, it only remains for the railroads to adopt it, and to thank him for his payer. Dr. C. B. Dudley, Altoona, Pa. : 111 rising to close this interestin~ discussion, I want, in the first place, to thank every one who has contributed to it for his full and open criticism. The work tvhich has been done on steel rails, and which has been diwu&e,l here Juring thee two days, was not done to establish any pet theories, nor to make out that any person was great or any person small, but with a sincere desire to get at what is the truth in regard to the wedring capacity of steel rails. There are enormous commercial coneiderations invoIved in this question, and, as I look at the matter, the more honest criticism and fair discussion there is, the Inore likely it is that the truth will appear. Ad first I would like to say that it seems to me very little has been said here upon the main conclusion of the paper, namely, that the softer rails give the better wear. All sorts of side issues have been discussed; but this poiat, which is really the principal one at issue, has been largely ignored, aid I cannot But feel that it still remains unshaken. Witb regard to ohemists end chemical work, there has been considerable said tending to throw discredib on chemists and their work; and while I believe that there have been in the past, are now, and may be in the futnre, a good many poor chemical analyses made, X also believe that chemists are, as a rule, as honest and competent as gentlemen who belong to other professiomc. There are chemisb who are chemists, and who are not chemists. The determination of -manganese has bee* called in question. Now I think the chemist at almost every steel works in the country will tell you that, in his experience, the manganese diffe1.s in different parts of the same ingot. Mr. T. T. Morrell, chemist of the Camhria Iron Company, whom I believe to be s thoroughly competent and hone6t chemist, tells me that he has often found different amounts of manganese in different parts of the same ingot. Come with me to Altoona, and I will take you into the machine shop where steel is king cut aud shaped, and I will show you that it is often necessary to stop the lathe or planer and take a cold chisel to cut oat a hard spot, or else ntn the risk of breaking the tool. This hard spot is simply a pttrt of the syiegel which was not thoraughiy mixed with the ma

Jan 1, 1881

By R. H. Sayre

.... The subject is one of great interest in every point of view to railroad managers and steel-rail makers. It has occurred to me that if in this connection your society would take up the matter of the shape or section of steel rails and the form of joint, and be able to arrive at such form for difEerent weight of rails as you could recommend to the railroa~ls of tbis country with a view of obtaining uniformity, it would be, in caseof adoption, of great value both to the railroads and makers of wils. My idea is that if botb your society and that of the civil engineers ahould join in the adoption of templates and their recoalmendation, it would be more likely tb have the desired effect. Youm truly, Robert H. Sayre..

Jan 1, 1881

By Ashbel Welch

Ashbel Welch, Lambertville, N. J.: Dr. Dudley has given the wear of steel rails under four different conditions. He arrives at the conclusion that the softer rails, or those that from their composition ought to be softer, wear better than the harder. But there is another condition which has an important bearing on the subject, and should not be overlooked,—the weight on a wheel. With the lighter weights of the past, the softer rails may have worn best; with the heavier weights of the future, the harder may wear best. Weights will probably be increased up to the capacity of steel to bear; then doubtless the harder steel will wear best. A leaden rail with ten pounds on a wheel might carry millions of tons, but with one hundred pounds on a wheel, it would be destfoyed by a few thousand tons. So in the days of iron rails, my experience was that the softer rails under light machinery stood better than some of the harder; but under heavy machinery the softer were much the most rapidly destroyed. It is doubtless the same with steel. The pounding motion of the wheels loosens or spreads the particles of a thin film of steel; the pull lengthwise on the rail de-

Jan 1, 1881

By J. W. Cloud

years ago upon the effect of having the rails always rolled in the same direction, and also of having them rolled backwards and forwards, and showed that under the latter course there were of necesshy weak spots somewhere near the centre of the rail, yet in all this discussion the methods of rolling have been passed by almost in silence. Mr.. Sandberg in his paper mentions the idea of using a regietering dynamometer attached to the punching machines, and of det.erminit~g the quality of the metal by the resistance which is shown. I think the' first idea of this kind was published by Professor Langley, then of Pittsburgh, who, while making some investigations for Mesrs. Miller, Metcalf and Parkin, announceti as tile result of a series of dynamometric experiments that abrasive resistance was the term which should be wed in regard to steels of different wearing qualities. I have had extremely delicate dynamometers attached to the instruments of precision with which I am making the iuvestigation on the fatigue of metals, and hope soon to communicate the results of the iovegtigation- made with them to the Institute. I wish again to call attention to the fact that we are wing the words " hardener " and " hardness " without any real idea of the meaning of these words. When we say hard and soft, as we have hen constantly doing during this discussion, is it quite sure that every one has exactly the same meaning in his mind ? Certainly, when hard is used in distinction from soft*, we mean not the capacity of wear, but the capacity of resistance to peuetration, to fracture, or some other resistance, and do not always meau the capacity of resistance to abrasion or crushing, which the discussion would sometimes seem to imply were the only qualitiw requisite to constitute a god rail. J. W. Cloud, Altoona, Pa. : I would call the attention of the Institute to the title of Dr. Dudley's interesting and valuable paper, —" The Wearing Capacity of Steel Rails in relation to their Chemical Composition and Physical Properties." Here are two separate and distinct questions: lst, The wearing capacity of steel rails in relation to their chemical content; and 2d, the wearing capacity of steel rails in relation to their physical properties. The discussion has been almost exclusively confined to the former question, on which there may be many differences of opinion in matters of detail without greatig affecting the result. The latter

Jan 1, 1881

By August Wendel

weight, and deflection, and recommends that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company denland that rails be made on specifications, based on these six variables, so narrow, that to fill them would cause the constant rejection of enormous quantities of steel, and a consequent enhancement of the price of rails, probably ten or twenty per cent., without any certainty that such rails would be any better than those the steel-mills are now making. I earnestly hope that the investigation which Dr. Dudley has so ably carried on will be continued. I hope the Pennsylvarlia Sailroad Company, or preferably a combination of several railroads, will institute the prolonged investigation which I think will be necessary to solve this deep problem; that they will take a hundred or more rails, watching and noting down carefully every detail of their manufacture as well as their analysis; that they will be carefully weighed before, during, and after service; that their crop-ends will be tested before service, and the rails themselves after removal; that all the sources of error which Dr. Dudley admits in the present investigation may be removed, and that enough facts may be gathered and tabulated so that the conclusions which may be drawn from them may be apparent to every one without labored discussion or heated argument. But I venture to prophesy that after this investigation shall have been completed, and a formula adopted which shall be satiefactory to both manufacturers and consumcrs, that formula will not be the one now under discussion. I hope Dr. Durlley will pardon me if I have been unduly severe in my criticism, and consider that I have written my remarks hastily and at a time which should have been given to needed rest. I differ with him only as regards the conclusions which he has drawn. I appreciate the value of his labors, and only make public my own conclusions in the hope of contributing to the advancement of the science of steelmaking, in which we are ail so deeply interested. Dr. August WENDEL, Troy, K. Y.: Dr. Dudley's last paper gives, certainly, very valuable and interesting information regarding the wear of rails under different conditions. His results concernillg the composition of rails, explotle, rather startlingly, some old theories regarding the wear of rails, and 1 think after his formula is silnplified it will be one good formula to work by. As he now arrives at the same conclusions reached ill his first paper, some of my remarks will apply to both, althougl~ I would

Jan 1, 1881

By T. Egleston

circumstances, would prefer the steel with which they are now familiar, to a specimen that Mr. Sandberg has described as having broken into seventeen pieces under the wheels. After blowing such low manganese steel, it may be coaxed into a rail, but it is a wonder that it holds together so long as it does, with so great a nornber of minute flaws. I would not in any way depreciate chemistry, but I think it should be kept in its proper sphere. Let the chemist look after the quality of pig metal, and apply common sense in the avoiding of extremes, then the most fastidious railroad cannot find fault with the result. PROFESSOR EGLESTON, New YORK City : It is not my place as an engineer to apologize for the chemists, but as no one seems disposed to do so, and as they have had more than their share of criticism, 1 am glad to say that I believe there are chemists in this Institute whose work and word are just as reliable, arid perhaps even more so, than that of the average engineer. But we ought to make a distinction; there are chemists and chemists. With the ordinary commercial chemist, who looks upon the science as so much merohandise, I have not a particle of sympathy; but with the chemist who looks upon his profession as engineers do upon theirs, I have every sympathy. When matiufactorers and engineers go to a chemist and ask him to make an investigation, and scretv him dowu to the lowest point, turning the equivalent of his brains into cents and mills, they ustially get an exact equivalent in poor work for miserable pay, and no one has or should have any sympathy with them, and the under these conditions has no right to ask for any, and no reason to criticise any work that he may get under such circumstances. But I am disposed to think that the chemists who have been replwented and discussed at this meeting do their work conscientiously, and that it is as reliable as that of almost any profession. I believe, however, that this problem of steel rails is being investigated in a wrong direction. I said so at the Pittsburgh meeting, and I think the discussion of this meeting will prove it to all those who have heard it. I think the chemigt is incapable of solving this problem unlees he goes very far into the domain of physical chemistry, so far that it becomes physics and not chemistry; and that the physicist will be the one on whom we must rely in the future for the elucidation of the subject. The chemist may aid the physicist, but it is my decided opinion that we are looking in the wrong place to get the explanation of the phenomena.

Jan 1, 1881

By Jacob Reese

longer and tougher. In the worst case I have observed, viz., two inches difference in circumference, this difference in hardoess, as observed from the cutting, was more marked than in the other cases. Tires are always grouped in sets by the manufactrlrers fiorn their knowledge of the chenlical camposit,ion of the steel, with an attempt to get those in one set which have the same degree of hardness, so that the wear shall be equal all around ; they succeed pretty well on the average, but I have been noting the exceptioiis. Jacob Reese, PittsHukQh, Pa. : I have been very much interested in the reading and discusion of Dr. Dudley's paper. As far as it selates to the data of work performed by the rails, and the determination of their physical and chemical properties, I have nothing but commendation of Dr. Dildley to express, as the investigation covered a greater range, and was performed with more care in detail, than any similar work which has come under my notice. But I beg leave to differ with Dr. Dudley in his conclusions. What are the factors of hardness? Are they not carbon, silicon, phosphorus, and manganese? Now it is an untlisputed fact among iuetallurgiml experts that pure carbon and pure iron make the best steel of all degrees of carburieation, and for all purposes. While carbon hardens, it also strengthens the metal, but silicon, phosphorus, and manganese, in hardening, make the metal also brittle, and are injarious in any amount. Carbon should be called a strengthener; and I claim that a steel rail made hard with carbon, with the other three hardeners absent or reduced to a minimum, will carry a greater tonnage than any of Dr. Dudley's soft rails. But until the basic process is put into operation in this country we cannot expect to produce Bessemer or open-hearth steel without the presence of silicon, phosphorus, and manganese, in consitlerable quautities, aod I greatly donht the possibility of reducing the perceutage of any of them by the prment practice without seriously diminishing the output, and correspondingly increasing the net cost of production; which is an important question, since the increased life of the rail may be more than balanced by its increased cost. I think that the soft rails performed a greater amount of work, because they contained a less amorlllt of silicon, phosphorus, and wangatwe (britlkrcr, if I may so term them), and that carbon does wt reduce the wearing capacity of rails. I believe that a rail made by the baqic process, with silicon, phosphorus, and manganese reduced to a minimum, and containing 0.60 carbon, will be stronger

Jan 1, 1881

By William Sellers

tested without knowing anything of their chemical composition. I had these pieces separately placed upon 10-inch bearings under a 7-gross ton lianlrner, a piece of 2½-inch round iron laid upon them as a fuller, and the hammer allotved to fall from 20 inches above the fuller, which, according to Haswell, gave a ldow of 67.75 gross tons. The pieces were then turned orcr, the fuller placed upon the convex surface, and the harnnler allowed to fall from 13 inches above the fuller, giving a blow of 58.46 gross tons. You will see that the rails do aot show ally bigrls of ruptnre, and their color at the points of torture prove them to have been absolutely cold when the test was made. I thirk these rails ought to be reasonably safe in the track. As you see by this piece of the head of one of these rails, I had it plarred, and then some teeth cut in it by a cold clrisel, and one-half of them pounded down with a hammer. The teeth of my rack did not break off. The analyses of these rails substquently made are: I. 11. Carbon,... 0.110 0.880 Silicon,..0.050 0.058 Phosphorus ,..0.086 0.082 Manganese,.. 0.042 0 840 In conclusion, I will say that Dr. Dudley's paper as a contribu tion to our knowledge of steel rails is valuable and interesting, but I protest against his conclusions king reoeived as manufacturing or comtnercial axioms. From its being presented in the form-of a report to the leading railroad of the country from one of its trusted officers, as well as from the tone of the concluding deductions, it is liable to be so received by railroad men. If any railroad com pany desires rails made under either of Dr. Dudley's formulas, and are willing to pay a price large enough to cover the loss in making them, dl and good; but so long as the rail makers are compelled to gwrrantee the wear of their rails for a given number of years, justice reqnires that. the composition of the steel from which these rails are made should be left to them. WILLIAM SELLERS, PHILADELPHIA: The very interesting paper upon the wear of steel rails that has just been read preseak the record of a series of investigations that are extreniely valuable, and the deduction that bas been drawn from the results noted seems to be unavoidable; the tests, however, to which it is proposed steel rails shall be subjected hereafter, with a view to determine their quality, sllould

Jan 1, 1881

By William Kent

William Kent, Pi.~t~bIJrQh, Pa.: The steel rnanufac.tnret of this country nlust ever he grateful to Dr. Dudley for his painstaking and conscientious endeavor to estaldish the relation between the chemical analysis and the wearing capcity of steel rails. They tnust thank him for the vast array of $acts he presents, and for having given them sixty-four analyses with which to combat his own conclusions and to establish their own, which are entirely opposite to his. In Dr. Duclley" discussion of his former investigation, at the Pittsburgh meeting, he said, "If you do not like my conclusions, draw your own conclusions." I have studied his last paper as thoroughly as the limited time since I received it would adruit, and have drawn some concluvions which I will first state, and then attempt to demonstrate. Briefly stated, my conclusions are: lst, That as far as these 64 analyses reveal anything of service to railmakers and cotsumera, it is that within the following chemical and physical limits, viz., Carbon,..0.20 to 0.60 Pisovphorue ,..0.026 to 0.146 Silicon,.. 0015 to 0.480 BInnganese.......0.262 to 0 880 Phosl~horus un~ts,..20.3 to 6.72 Bending weight,. 2270 lbs. to 4260 Ibs. Drfl~ctinn,.. 13O to 190° or in other words within the limits of rienrly the whole range of the chenlical and bending testa of these 6-2 mils: the wearing capacity bears no relation at all to mrbon, to phosphorus, to silicon, to mnnganese, to phosphorus units, to bending weight or to deflection or if there is any relation between the wearing capacity and thest! six or sr!ven variables, it is so obscured by the action of other cause or variat~les not yet known, that such relation cannot be expressed by any practical formula. 2d. That the difference in wearing capacity of these 64 rails was not due to unrbon, to phosphorus, to silicou, to manganese, or to anj combinntion of these four elements, but that it was due to some other cause or cornbination of causes, of which Dr. Dudley's whole iuvestigtion furnishes 11s no clue whatever. A few of the nlarry possible causes I lnay name : sulphur, copper, oxide of iron inclossl air or other gases, orerblowing, underblowing, oyrhaiting, undcrIreatinp, too hot-finishing, too cold-finishing, cold-straightening, toc great or too litkle rductiun hlu the rail to the ingot, or the portion

Jan 1, 1881

By C. E. Stafford

and tougher, and will carry double the tonnage of any of Dr. Dud ley's soft mils. C. E. Stafford, Steelton, Pa.: I must confess my high ap preciation of Dr. Dadlq's conscientious and painstaking work, and of his scientific methds in obtaining the data; but with his method of handling these results and with his conclusions drawn therefrom 1 canuot agree. The reasons for this difference of opinion I will endeavor to explain. It is apparent on inspecting his Plates 6 and 7 that the majority of the slower-wearing rails are from the north track, and generally have a longer time of service, a greater average tonnage per rail, and a smaller avernge tonnage per year per rail than the faster wearing, the majority of which are from the south track, and gener ally have a shorter time of service, a smaller average tonnage per rail, and a greater average tonnage per year per rail. Have these facts any significance Have these different of conditions to which they are subjected any baring on the relative wearing capacity of these rails I venture to say they have. I think, after a study of Table I (page 676), (an arrangement of linee 17 and 18 of Plate a), in connection with Plates 6 and 7, we will find that the slower wear of the 32 best rails is only partly due to qualities inherent in the rails themselves, but is principally due to external conditions favorable to slower wear. In regard to the north and south track, we know that over the rsoiith track come the loaded cam from the West, and that over the north track these cars return, most of them, empty. It is evident that this means for the north track a less average tonirage per rail per year; or, in other words, a lower wheel tonnage. When the load per wheel is less, the resistance and consequently the wear must, necessarily, be less, other things being equal. Time of service, alee, has an important bearing on the question in hand. It has been only within the last five or six years, as Dr. Dudley has pointed out, that the roadbed of the Pennsylvania Rail road has reached its present admirable condition. Before this time the njadbrd was more elastic, more yielding (and probably not uni tbrmly so) than at present. These circumstalices might cause a sofier rail to be more durable than a harder one, owing to the fact that it ulonId yield rnore or less to the bending force of the passing load and would thus get a bearing on each cross-tie. The harder rail, on the other hatid, being stiffer and more. unyielding, would not

Jan 1, 1881

By W. R. Jones

composition, he cannot reasonably asl; the manufacturer to guarantee that this composition shall give certain physical results. W. R. Jones, Pittsburgh, Pa. : The question that naturally occlun to me is this: Has Dr. Dudley in his inveatigtrtions been aiming to prove a theory, or has he been guided by an earnest desire to discover what are the proper elements in the composition of a good-wearing steel rail ? Unfortunately, for correct chemical information, he has omitted in his analgw two very importnat elements,—sulpbur and copper. Now, before we will even begin to admit the correctnets of Dr. Dudley's conclusions and the formula he prescribes, we will at the start question the propriety of any chenlist or scientist prescribing a formula for making steel when he has iguared such important ele ments as sulphur aud copper. I, for one, will not accept any such formula. Are we sure, or is Dr. Daclley sure, that the chemical analyseq embodied in his paper are correct? This may seem a presumptuous queetion, yet, with my experience with chenlists, I naturally doubt the correctness of the analyse8, and, before I will accept them as correct, I will ask that comparative tests of phosphorous and man ganese be made by the Pennsylvania Railroad chemists and the chemists of the leading steel-works in the country. Let us first verify the correctness of the analyses before we consider the con clusions. I can enumerate a great number of instances in which chemists have differed very widely in their determinations of phos phorus and manganese. A prominent iron fitam made a contract with the Edgar Thomson Steel Company to deliver pig metal guar anteed to be between 0.07 and 0.08 phosphorus; an analysis by our chemist resulted in phosphorus 0.148 and 0.152,—a rather startling difference! Again, a sample bar of steel, in which our chemist reported phosphorus 0.11, was tested by a chemist of au other Bessemer works, ana his determinations were phosphorus between 0.07 and 0.08: A leading engineering establishmeut of Pittsbdrgh bought iron claimed by a chemical analysis to contain 0.08 phosphorus; our Mr. Ford found phosphorus 0.145. A chem ist connected with an open-hearth works reported manganese in a piece of steel, 1.14; in a second determination from the same piece of steel, by the same chemist, manganese was reported 0.43. The chemist was kept in ignorauce of the fact that both samples were from the saw piece of steel. Two dctermiuations for manganese

Jan 1, 1881

By William R. Hart

I was this morning an interested listener to the remarks of Mr. Ashbel Welch in regard to his designing a new section for steel rails, in 1866; and for the salze of the truth of history, and in order t:, give the credit to an American (and where it rightfully belongs) of higning the first section for steel rails, which was intelligently adapted to that material; I beg to state the following facts: On the 14th of August, 1866, Mr. Ashbel Welch gave me an order for 200 tons of steel rails, to be made bbr the Camden and Amboy Railroad, from a section designed by him. A copy of this section 1 append herewith.

Jan 1, 1881

By R. W. Hunt

The old plan was to increase every part of a rail much in the same proportion. But each part should be in proportion to what it ha.; to do. The head should be deep in proportion to tile amount. of traffic and the lowness of the rate of interest on its cost. The body need only he strong enough to carry the head after it is well worn down, and that deperlds on the weight of the machinery, and in the case of steel has little to do with the volume of traffic, except SO far as that affects weight of machinery. Ad on most railroad systems, the same niacliinery is used on main lines with heavy traffic, and bra11ct:es with light, I suggested in 1874 that each systern adopt the same body of rail for both, and make the head deeper on the main lines, shallower on the branches. This plan was adopted on the Pennsylvania Railroad. Bandberg seems to recognize this in his patterns of 1878. E. W. HUNT, TRoy, N. Y.: Again Dr. Dudley preaents to our cousideration a series of most carefully conductetl experiments, and ~llile I fully appreciate the labor and thought this work has cost him, I must still hesitate to accept his deductiono. This paper dilliirs from the previous one in that it denls esclrieively with the wearing qualitiei. of steel rails. Dr. Dudley gives his reason for this change in the following statement: " With the improvement in maintenance of way which has characterized the Pennsylvania Railroad during the last five or six yearn, the remova1 of rails from the track from the first two of these causes (i. e., broken and crushel), has, if I am right, quite notably diminished. This certainly is true with regard to broken rails. And if, as time advances, the number of crushed rails shall diminish, both because of the continued improvement in maintenance of way before referred to, and because, owing to improved and better methods at the steel works, there are fewer crushed rails caused by physical defects in the steel, the question of the wearing capacity of steel rails obviously becomes the allimportant one." Certainly the condition of the roadhd has much to do with mils brealring, crushing, and wearing. If the Pennsylvania and other railroads have done and are doing their part, Dr. Dudley oourteously admits that the steel works have performed part of theirs. But as far as I am informed, the formulas which they have used have been and are still quite wide of the one he continues to recommend. The rails which are not breaking or crushing to so great an extent as formerly, contain higher percentages of both carbon and manganese.

Jan 1, 1881

By O. Chanute

all of' level atid grade curve excepting Nos. 897, 898, 899, and 900, because of the impossibility of grouping them in the same nlonner, no two Iraving the chemical composition and physical prnprtiw as tho only v:iriubles. Phosphorus ~tnits have been taken to show the relatia h:wdnes. Of these 16 groups, 10 decidedly indicate slower wear firr tile harder rail. Of the remaining 6 groups, three (groups 2, 9, and 15) come well within the limits of error (.25 pound per yard) inherent in the palculation of the data as pointed out by Dr. Dndley; they catrnot, therefore, be considered tls exceptions. Group 2 and 15 arc but little outside of the limita of error. Rail 923 of group 9 is obviously abnornlal. This is probahly due to its being overheated, which the chemical analysis shows might easily be the case, and which the physical tc~ts and its low specific gravity tend to c-nfirm. We inry say, then, thnt 13 of these 16 groups fairly indicate, if they do not definitely point out, th:kt, under the same condition% tbe harder rail gives the slower wear. Of course, these comparisons are too few to enable us to arrive at positive ~?o-nclusions; but indications thus obtained are, I believe, fir more vsluitblc and tresttvc~rthy than those fhzt averages rvottld give us, mnde up from any ~lumhr of rails under intloy difi~rcal, conditions. Finally, it, seems to me, that the conclusions arrived at earlier in my remarks, together with, and confirmed by the last, show strong evidence that, under the same conditions, the harder rail will givc the slower wear. 0. C~~anute, New York CITY: We are very much shlipl, 1 ant sure, to Mr. Sandberg for his paper upn " Rail Ryaifications and Rail Inspertion in Europe." We have in thp United States bithhrto Been inspecting mils sonlewl~at haphazard, and we ore glad to gtbt tfie results of Mr. Sandberg's long experience. We recognize that he was an)ong the first, if not the very firwt, to iipply mare rittional and scientific rules to the designing of irou rails., niora recently, to adapt tlitve rules to the clesigtting of steel I':I~]R, to conform to the oapaljilities and rqniretnento of this new n1:ttcrial. Although we have generally adopted, in this country, sectinns for hteel rails which marly of our railway men think even bottar than those of Mr. Snlldlmrg, he is neverthelees the Ieat3er in foot.iito11~ we have followed ever since it has been est~blished

Jan 1, 1881

C. P. Sandberg, London, Eng. 1 think we should all be grateful to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and to their chemist, Dr. Dudley, for spending so much time and money in order to solve an important question; nor are me less indebted to the public spirit which leads them to impart tlie experience thus gained. In Europe nothing similar has hitherto been done, either by a company or by any private individual. In England the great railway companies employ their engineers in other ways, and do not keep a chemist or specialist to study rails; bat even if they did they would probably not publish the results. The chief professional engineers are so occupied with their private practice of railroad construction generally, that they cannot be expected to devote their time and energies to so special a question. The German Railway Union has, in my opinion, missed the real object of its elaborate researches by falling into the error of specifying costly, impracticable tests for rails—tests at the same time which do not infallibly expose the impurities that may be in the rails under examination. There has, therefore, been nothing done on this side of the Atlantic in the way of exhaustive study to determine the best composition for steel rails. America should consequently have full credit for the enlightened example which she has set. I wish, however, to make a few remarks on Dr. Dudley's second paper,—& paper which follows very much upan the same lines of argument as the first red three years ago, upon which I have previously touched in my pabr on the same subject read at the meeting in August last. If Dr. Dudley had discovered a new metal he could hardly, I think, have taken wore pains to prove that he was correct in his first formula for the best chemical colnposition of steel rails. But I hare seen so much done in the way of proof by experiment that I am inclined to think that almost anything can be proved by experiments and by satnples. If Dr. Dudley would only give up his formula, which would not suit any country—not even America—

Jan 1, 1881

By R. W. Raymond

to same extent, the assumptions tinderlying Dr. Ilu?ley's con alusions. These amrrmptions are: that 'the loss of metal per million tons of trafffc, depends, first upon the circrtnistances under which the rail is worn; secondly, upon the proportions of its various constituents, ancl that the anlorlnt of loss is afEect~d by eacb constitnent in a cer tain ratio, so that if the circunlstances were the same for all tlie mils, the wear per nliilion tons might he upproxi91ately expre~sed by an equation of the form I + Cc + Pp + SR + Mm = R, io wtlioh I is an unknown valne, dependi~.rg on the quantity of iron (and other ingre dients not determined) in the rail, and assumed to be constant for all the rails ; c, p, s, and m are the experimentally determined quan tities of carhon, phosphorus, sulphur, and manganese, as tabulater1 in YIates VT and VII of Dr. Dudley's paper; and R is the experirnen tdlly dcterlnincd wear per million tons; while C, P, S, and M are onknown wfficients. In other words, it is assunled that the differ ence in wear is proportional to a difference in c, p, s, or m, and that the effects of a change in the amonnt of either are independent of the amount of the rest-—within the experinlental limit5 of the problem. It is also assr~med that sulphar, copper, and other ingredients, not determined, are qually present in all the rails, or at least {lo not affect the wear, since I is taken as constant. Dr. Dudley tacitly assumes the coefficient6 C, P, S, and M to be positive; and assigns certain valries to them, by means of which he redom t.he equation to the form I + Pa: = R, x being equal to cc + Es +Mm i Pp, or tjje uanjbe,. of so-called phosphorus units in the rail. But we do not have R directly given under constant circumstances. The varying weights (per engine, car, or train) and the varying epds, we must neglect for lack of data, and assume that in these rwpects the rails examined have been treated srlbstantially alike. But there remain the varying conditions as to track, which mnst he elirninsted. Dr. Dudley gives six clrlsses, four of which contain 8 rails each, and two 16 rails each. Beginning with the 6~st (tangent grade), take the mean of the figures expressing wear for that clam; and continaing tliis process through the other five, we obtain six expressions in quantity of loss 'by wear, which we assome tc, represent, in their differences, the varying conditions of the trarli, with respect to grade and direction. We now take the mean of these moans (giving double weight to the gmiip containing 16 ohwrvafieras). This general rnean is the 10 of metal per million tons of trafio for a rail of avorage constitution under mean ciroumstances.

Jan 1, 1881

By C. B. Dudley

In a work published in 1838, De Morgan, the author of the article on " Probabilities," in the Encyclopedia Metropolltimn, says: " The method of least squares is not yet introduced iutb the affairs of common life,.....that many thi~gs which are denlonstrable only by the higher branches of mathematics are looked upon as useless." And he mentions an instance in which "a method was suggested for estimating the relative importance of boroughs, by considering their population and ~wntributions to the revenue con)-

Jan 1, 1881

By C. P. Sandberg

C. P. Sandberg, London, Eng. 1 think we should all be grateful to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and to their chemist, Dr. Dudley, for spending so much time and money in order to solve an important question; nor are me less indebted to the public spirit which leads them to impart tlie experience thus gained. In Europe nothing similar has hitherto been done, either by a company or by any private individual. In England the great railway companies employ their engineers in other ways, and do not keep a chemist or specialist to study rails; bat even if they did they would probably not publish the results. The chief professional engineers are so occupied with their private practice of railroad construction generally, that they cannot be expected to devote their time and energies to so special a question. The German Railway Union has, in my opinion, missed the real object of its elaborate researches by falling into the error of specifying costly, impracticable tests for rails—tests at the same time which do not infallibly expose the impurities that may be in the rails under examination. There has, therefore, been nothing done on this side of the Atlantic in the way of exhaustive study to determine the best composition for steel rails. America should consequently have full credit for the enlightened example which she has set. I wish, however, to make a few remarks on Dr. Dudley's second paper,—& paper which follows very much upan the same lines of argument as the first red three years ago, upon which I have previously touched in my pabr on the same subject read at the meeting in August last. If Dr. Dudley had discovered a new metal he could hardly, I think, have taken wore pains to prove that he was correct in his first formula for the best chemical colnposition of steel rails. But I hare seen so much done in the way of proof by experiment that I am inclined to think that almost anything can be proved by experiments and by satnples. If Dr. Dudley would only give up his formula, which would not suit any country—not even America—

Jan 1, 1881