Philadelphia Paper - Discussion on Steel Rails. Philadelphia Meeting

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