Philadelphia Paper - Discussion on Steel Rails. Philadelphia Meeting

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