On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Amid the considerable amount of discussion which has been aroused by the recent report upon the American locomotives on the Midland Railroad, the best statement has come from the pen of Mr. Charles Rous- Marten, than whom there is no better qualified critic upon the comparative efficiencies of various types of locomotives. Mr. Rous-Marten is well known in every part of the world where locomotives are to be found. He makes it his specialty to ride upon the foot-plate or in the cab of almost every new locomotive that has qualities of novelty or efficiency that render it worthy of special comparison with the standard locomotives already in use. This gentleman recently communicated to The Engineer an article which we reproduce in the current issue of the SUPPLEMENT. As the paper contains the observations of a man who is perfectly familiar with the work of both English and American locomotives, and who is noted as an unbiased observer, its conclusions have particular value in the present discussion. In the first place, we gather that the test was most carefully carried out by Mr. Johnson, the Locomotive Superintendent of the Midland Railroad; that it extended over a period of six months; and that it was instituted specifically to learn what the respective merits of the two types, American and English, would prove to be under the same conditions. A superior economy was shown on the part of the English engine of twenty per cent to twenty-five per cent in fuel; fifty per cent in oil; and sixty per cent in repairs as the result of the six months' trial. At the same time the Superintendent reports that the foreign engines worked their trains satisfactorily. Mr. Rous-Marten emphatically condemns the attitude of the non-technical press of England in taking the results of the Midland trial as proving that American locomotives, as such, are broadly inferior to those of British make. In reply to the question, Is it not a fair comparison to have bath engines made as nearly as possible of practically identical power and then to try them together on identical work? Mr. Rous-Marten, who, by the way, is an Englishman himself, replies: No, it is not; unless it be clear that each class of engines is the one that would be used ordinarily for the same work in the land of'its origin. The Midland freight engine is the outcome of Mr. Johnson's many years of experience in judgment as to what is the best type of engine to haul a 560-ton coal-train over the Midland line; and it does the work at a low cost for fuel, oil and repairs. Now, although the American locomotives were ordered to be built of the same power as the Midland standard freight engines, it must be noted, says Mr. Rous-Marten, that the order to the American firms was not that the locomotives were to be of the class and power that would be employed in America to do the work required; and just here comes in the disadvantage under which the American locomotives were laboring. If the maximum load to be hauled had been stated in the contract, and the American locomotive builders been allowed a free hand as to the size and power of ' locomotives which they would offer to do this particular work, they would have turned out, according to Mr. Rous-Marten, very different machines than those which . were actually sent over. Thus, instead of locomotives with 18 x 24-inch cylinders and 1,200 to 1,300 square feet of heating surface, and 160 pounds of steam pressure, the American builders would probably have sent over an engine with from 1,750 to 2,500 square feet of heating surface and 180 to 200 pounds steam pressure. In other words, according to the author of the paper, American locomotive practice \s based upon the principle of allowing a liberal margin of power, whereas the English locomotives, in this case at least, were designed to do just the exact amount of work specified in the contract. The argument is summed up in the statement: Therefore the recent Midland trial only proves that identical dimensions for identical work will not suit engines of totally different designs and modes of construction." The fact of the matter is that the question stands where it was before this trial. It is fully admitted by American builders that as a piece of high- class workmanship, the English engine cannot be improved upon for the work it has to do on English roads. But while it is granted that the English engine is longer lived, it is a question whether there is any ultimate advantage in prolonging the life of a locomotive beyond its actual period of usefulness. Here in America we have learned that the conditions 0 transportation change so rapidly that the ideal locomotive of one decade may have outlived its usefulness in the next. The English always aimed at a high theoretical ' performance in their locomotives, and unquestionably they have secured it; but they have secured it at the expense of certain elements which go to make up successful railroad operation. If there were less expensive finish on the engines, and less successful effort to prolong their life beyond the period at which, in this country, they would be sent to the scrap heap. it is quite possible that the shareholders of the English railroad companies and the traveling public themselves would be gainers.
