the locomotive? I doubt, however, if we would be justified in abandoning our present valve motion and go back to the old hook motion, simply because we have not as yet discovered what we would call a perfect valve motion, and it occurs to me that as we are coming to larger fire boxes, just as Mr. Manchester has mentioned, and are enabled to reduce the draft, with ample heating surface, etc., we are going to see the time when we will have an extended front, which is in fact, as well as in theory, a spark-retainer, or receptacle for sparks, and when railroad companies are paying out hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for fire claims it may be well to devote thought to it, and certainly not do anything to discourage development in that line.

In Figs. 16 and 17 is shown the Johnstone front, which is one of the so-called self-cleaning front ends. You will notice the netting that reaches up to the front and top of the smoke box is not connected at the bottom, leaving an open space of seventeen inches for entire width of box, no netting at all being between the bottom of the petticoat pipe and the lower part of the vertical netting. Now, I doubt if we want to try anything of that kind in the western country where there is so much danger of fire. You will also notice in the Turner front end that, although I am not certain but I should say from looking at the cut, there is an opening near the lower part of what may be termed the vertical section of netting, and on the Bell front end, that is, Fig. 23, there is an opening of two inches clear across the entire box, protected below with a piece of netting which is not connected.

I note in the cut of the Bell front, a netting is shown with meshes 114x22. Now, that is certainly quite a liberal opening, and it occurs to me that if these self-cleaning fronts were fitted with netting having 2x21⁄2-inch mesh, or 21⁄2 x3-inch mesh, as is the practice on some western roads, they would very quickly cease to be self-cleaning. My idea is, that the cinders retained in the extension front are those of largest size and most liable to start a fire, and that, for this reason it is quite an element of safety.

Some years ago I experimented with a self-cleaning front, fitted. with netting 22x21⁄2 mesh, with anything but satisfactory results. I also conceived the idea about the same time, of using what is shown in the Coburn front, consisting of a lot of projections, and referred pulverizer" or "atomizer," but before going into it, decided to try and find out just what was necessary to pulverize these pieces of coke. I arranged an air-blast through a 2-inch pipe with an ane

to as a

66

mometer to measure the force of the blast, and properly located spikes against which the cinders would be thrown when they came out of the pipe, and after repeating the experiment several times, with blast ranging from two inches to ten inches of water, and throwing the sparks against spikes that were clean and sharp, instead of having a coat of soot to make them like velvet, as must be true in practice on a locomotive, I found the effect quite inappreciable, and, of course, decided not to apply any "pulverizers."

I am firmly of the opinion that as we come to larger grate area, permitting lighter draft and lower rate of combustion, the extension front will be found capable of retaining the few cinders carried to smoke box, between points where they can be cleaned, and will add much to cleanliness of train and comfort of passengers, and also aid in preventing setting out of fires.

The Secretary then read the following communication from the superintendent of the Baldwin Locomotive Works:

PHILADELPHIA, PA., Sept. 16, 1899.

Mr. F. M. Whyte, Secretary Western Railway Club,

Chicago, Ill.:

DEAR SIR-I have received your letter of September 9, and also the pamphlet. It will be impossible for me to be present at the meeting, or to send you a written discussion of the paper.

There are so many devices used, and all doing good work, that I am inclined to think almost anything can be used, but the best results could be obtained without any obstruction at all in the smoke box.

THE SECRETARY: In this last sentence Mr. Vauclain, I believe, intends to convey the idea that a front end with no netting in it to obstruct the passage of gases would give the best results, and this is probably true as far as draft and back pressure are concerned, because with 22x21⁄2-inch mesh, say No. 11 wire, the exhaust must take place through a very small nozzle to produce the same draft through the tubes that would be produced if the mesh were 2x2 or with larger openings. Some roads have taken 22x21⁄2 with the expectation of breaking up the cinders and reducing the chances of setting fires, and this is a very good reason. Either the cinders must be broken small enough to pass through the netting or they are retained in the smoke box. There are some devices in use in the east which are arranged so that the extension may be cleaned at desirable points on the road.

These are in the form of adjustable diaphragms, and when adjusted in a certain position, the cinders, or a larger portion of them, are retained in the smoke box. While running through a section of country in which there is no danger of setting out fire, the diaphragm. is dropped and the front end is cleared of cinders. It is claimed that the arrangement gives much satisfaction.

MR. P. H. PECK: I recollect several years ago, Mr. Briggs, master mechanic at Providence, Rhode Island, used a large cone in a wood burner stack. He had a large pipe running from near the top back through the top of the boiler into the fire box so as to burn the cinders, but I have never seen an engine so equipped; I have, however, seen a drawing of one. I have tried experiments since I have been in Chicago, with a stack with two fans inside. The fans were run by the exhaust of the engine and carried the sparks back to the ash pan, but the device was a failure. The fans would fill with small cinders and dust and would not work. We are now using a front with which we can handle the sparks in any way desired, by adjusting a diaphragm; either catching them or throwing them out. We do not want the sparks, but catch them to prevent fires, and it is for that purpose that the sparks are caught in the extension front end.

About twenty-five years ago the Rock Island & St. Louis railroad had a straight stack and small front end. The netting was coneshaped and extended from the nozzles to the top of the stack so the netting was continuous for the length of stack and front end combined. I never knew of any other road using this device and do not know how it worked, but I do not think it amounted to very much as no other road adopted it. This stack had no cone and was a good

steamer.

MR. HILL (P. & P. U. Ry.): In 1887, I changed some engines. from diamond to straight stacks; with the diamond stack they were very hard steamers. The change made very free steamers of them. The high nozzle extending a little above the top row of flues was used with a deflecting plate back of the exhaust nozzle, and 3x3 mesh No. 12 wire netting straight across the smoke box just above the top row of flues. The smoke box of these engines was only thirty inches long from flue sheet to front end. No cinder pocket was used. No cinders accumulated in the front ends and we have had no trouble on account of fires. These engines are running in this condition today. The illustration herewith shows the device as used in all engines we

have had built for the past ten years. No cinder pocket for the discharge of cinders is used, notwithstanding the cut shows one. This is explained by the fact that this is an illustration of a builder's blue print and is so arranged to put on cinder pocket for parties who desire it. You will notice in this illustration that I bring the deflecting plate forward of the exhaust nozzle. This gives more area back of the plate and keeps the front end clear of cinders. Instead of wire netting we use perforated plate No. 7 wire gauge thick, with holes 4x14 inches round ends. We find this to be a very satisfactory and economical arrangement. The expense of cleaning out extension front ends is quite an item. On passenger and suburban engines we use the extencatching the cinders and cleaning them out at the ends This is done as a matter of comfort for the passengers. If on long runs it is found that the front end fills up before getting to the end of the run, a spark ejector can be put on to operate by steam or air and handled by the engineer from the cab.

sion front end, of the run,

THE PRESIDENT: I hope it will not be necessary to call on the members, but that the discussion will proceed as it has. It is certainly a very interesting subject and one that comes home to us very forcibly, especially when there is a fire in the immediate vicinity.

MR. F. SLATER (C. & N.-W. Ry.) I have given this question of extension front and spark-arresting devices considerable thought and have had considerable experience with it, and I believe that for the protection of any railroad it is necessary to have an extension front, so that you can go into court and show that you have a device for arresting sparks. I have been fortunate, or unfortunate, as you might call it, in being sent to several places to give testimony in cases. of fire suits, and the lawyers were always cheerful when they could prove that the company had a modern spark-arrester and could convey the idea to the jury that the company had done everything in its power to arrest the sparks. I have read this report somewhat carefully and agree with Mr. Vauclain that it is useless for a body of men to ever attempt to get a standard front. It will never be accomplished. Everybody has got the best front end. A short time ago I had an engine, on the division that I have charge of, that bothered me for steam. The engine was equipped with the front end recommended by the Master Mechanics' Association, but the engineers. would come to me and tell me that the style of front end that they