tests corroborate that conclusion." The correctness of the position taken by the committee, as to the extended smoke box, is so clear and unquestionable, that the report did not fail to speedily and favorably impress many motive power officers, and since its publication, the decline of the extension, while for obvious reasons not as rapid as its rise, has been decided and continuous, culminating, as has been recently evidenced, in its abandonment by the Pennsylvania railroad on their latest and most improved types of engines.

At the same convention of the association at which the report last referred to was made, there was also presented a demonstration, in facts and figures, of the inefficiency and undesirability of the extended smoke box, which is not only wholly at variance with the extravagant claims of advantage which, as we have seen, had previously been made for it, but also confirms, by results in service for a long period, and with a large number of engines, the correctness of the committee's sixth conclusion above quoted. This was given by Mr. J. H. McConnell, superintendent of motive power of the Union Pacific railroad in the course of the discussion on the committee's report, and is particularly persuasive and forcible, for the reason that it is absolutely devoid of argument, and is simply a clean-cut statement of facts, the correctness of which does not seem to have been then or thereafter disputed. The following excerpt from Mr. McConnell's remarks (Proceedings, page 124) is believed to be of sufficient interest to be quoted at length:

"The result of the diamond stack in dollars and cents to our company has been that in 1890 we hauled 254 loaded freight cars one mile with a ton of fuel; in 1893 we hauled 260 cars with a ton of fuel. In passenger service in 1890 we hauled 119 passenger cars with a ton of fuel, and in 1893 we hauled 145 passenger cars with a ton of fuel. In 1890 we hauled 2,590 tons of freight one mile with a ton of coal. In 1893 we hauled 2,757 tons of freight one mile with one ton of coal. In 1890 our engines were all equipped with extension front and straight stack. In 1893 they were all equipped with the diamond stack. In 1890 the cost of handling a loaded car, including all the expense of the motive power and car department, was 3.17 cents. In 1893 it was reduced to 2.79. Our train haul is increased. 1890 the passenger service was five passenger cars to a train; in 1893 it was 5.96. Our freight service has increased. We were handling 15.86 cars in a train in 1890, and we were handling 17.12 cars per train in 1893. Our tonnage has increased, and we have saved in one year 87,000 tons of coal by using the diamond stack over the extension front end."

In

Whether or not the diamond stack front end used by Mr. McConnell is the best and most desirable construction, under any and all conditions of fuel and service, is a question wholly separate and apart from that of the relative merits of that construction and of the extended smoke box, and one which is much too farreaching for discussion here. It seems, however, conclusive that Mr. McConnell was correct in his further statement that "for the Union Pacific road it is more economical to use the diamond stack, and we get better results from the diamond stack than we did from the extension front end."'

The report of the committee on "Exhaust Nozzles and Steam Nozzles and Steam Passages" was briefly discussed, chiefly as to a continuance of the investigation, at the twenty-eighth annual convention, 1895, and while it is so clear and plain that its essential features are unmistakable, it may be noted that they were reiterated by Mr. D. L. Barnes, who said: "Our recommendation related solely to

having a low nozzle and tapered stack, with a certain shape of base, and a short smoke box no longer than the cinder pocket would require."

Prior to a consideration of more prominent examples of present practice, the latest forms of the diamond stack front end may be referred to. Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate that which is applied on large consolidation engines recently built by the Brooks Locomotive Works for the Union Pacific railroad, and which is substantially similar to that referred to by Mr. McConnell in his remarks at the 1894 convention above noted. The construction does not present any substantial features of novelty, but is fairly representative of this general type. The blue print which is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7, was furnished by Mr. McConnell, with a letter of

April 4, 1899, in which he does not call attention to any particular of special design or detail of the front, but gives a clear and interesting statement of the experience of the Union Pacific in connection with front ends, the concluding paragraphs of which, showing the continued satisfactory service of the short front and the diamond stack are as follows:

"In 1891 we commenced the removal of the front ends and applied diamond stacks to all of the engines as fast as they went through the shops. The effect of this was immediately noticeable in the steaming of the engine, and in the decreased consumption of coal. At the same time we commenced increasing our train haul. We find our engines steam freer, we could always depend upon them, and we were enabled to open up the exhaust nozzles, thereby increasing the effective power of the cylinder by reducing the back pressure. We had less trouble with leaky steam pipes. The number of engine failures on account of steam were very largely reduced, and there was a large decrease in the amount of coal consumed per mile. "Have talked with a number of superintendents of motive power concerning the longer extension, and do not find among any of them a claim that the long extension is as economical on fuel as the short front end and diamond stack; the principal claim being that it is modern, and the engine and train is cleaner, as the sparks are thrown so high that they clear the train; and in a great many instances they were applied to locomotives because some of the competing roads applied them. Others went on the principle that theoretically it was the correct principle, regardless of the fact that it was costing more for fuel to operate the locomotives than the old form of front end and stack. Am disposed to believe there are a number of men in the country now who are somewhat dissatisfied with the device and when the proper time comes will make a change in it.".

Mr. McConnell is understood to be conducting tests as to the practicability of employing an open stack with a short smoke box, but this fact, if it be a fact, or the adoption by him of a front of such character, if it should be found suitable with the class of fuel used on his road, would in no degree be at variance with the views expressed by him as to the relative merits of the short and long smoke box.

Figs. 8 and 9 show a diamond. stack, which is the standard for all wood burning engines on the Mexican Central system. While this front end is generally similar to that of the Union Pacific, it differs radically therefrom, and from all other constructions of this type, in the particular that no netting whatever is used n the stack or smoke box. Mr. F. W. Johnstone, superintendent M. P. & M., Mexican Central railway, personally informed the writer that he has found the construction entirely satisfactory in service, engines steaming freely and not throwing fire. In a communication dated May 12, 1899, he confirms the position taken by Mr. McConnell, his views as to smoke box length being expressed in the following extract from his letter:

"I cannot very well give you any comparative tests between the short ends and the standard front end, as we have not used any extended front ends for ten years. I found out early in the game that they were no good, and did away with them.

"About 12 years ago we got some engines built with extended front end. When we were obliged to turn these engines into wood, I found it necessary to put in a partition in the front end, reducing the area, before we could get the engines to do any good at all, although we made every conceivable change before resorting to this expedient. This convinced me that the extended front end was a failure, and we soon had all our engines changed back to the short front end, and did away with the useless cinder pot."'

The committee on "Exhaust Pipes and Steam Passages," again submitted an elaborate and valuable report, at the twenty-ninth annual convention of the American Railway Master Mechanics' Association, 1896. For convenience of reference and comparison with examples of recent construction, which will be hereafter

given, Plate 48 of this report, which shows the arrangement of exhaust pipe, nozzles, and stack which the committee found to give the greatest efficiency, is here reproduced as Fig. 10.

While, as before indicated, the committee recommended that the smoke box be made sufficiently long to permit a cinder pocket or cinder pot for the discharge of cinders, to be located in front of the cylinder saddle, the general recognition of the fact that the smoke box, whether long or short, could not and did not in practice, perform to any extent the function of a cinder receptacle or retainer, suggested the inquiry as to whether or not a cinder-discharging appliance was of any substantial utility. This was the subject of Topic No. 2: "Is it possible to arrange the front ends of locomotives so they will clear themselves of cinders without throwing sparks." at the thirty-first annual convention of the association, 1898. (Proceedings, pp. 103-108). It was sufficiently demonstrated that the question could be answered in the affirmative, the means employed being an extension of the deflecting plate or diaphragm, to a point in front of the exhaust pipe. This