Chapter 4

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF AVERAGE COST OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK.

__________________________________________________________________________ | | | | | | M. & | L. & | E.T., V.|Average. | | O. R.R. | N. R.R. |& G. R.R.| | |_________|_________|_________|_________| | | | | | Engines and tenders--per engine | $325.70 | $202.58 | $61.82 | $196.70 | Pass., bag., and ex. cars--per car| 9.87 |[2] 5.81 | 4.73 | 6.80 | Freight cars, per car | 4.40 |[3] 5.81 | 3.60 | 4.60 | M. of W. cars, per car | 13.32 | 2.72 | 5.89 | 7.31 | Track (inc. sidings bridges, | | | | | etc.), per mile | 45.37 | 47.83 | 46.09 | 46.26 | Track tools, per mile | 2.70 | 1.31 | 1.80 | 1.94 | Temporary side tracks, per mile | 192.83 | | 305.44 | 249.13 | |_________|_________|_________|_________| Total per mile of track, inc. | | | | | sidings | $113.68 | $100.67 | $ 79.06 | $ 97.80 | __________________________________|_________|_________|_________|_________|

[Footnote 2: Expense not divided as between passenger and freight cars.]

[Footnote 3: 3.5 per cent. passenger, baggage, and express cars, 96.5 per cent. freight cars.]

NOTE--Since the preparation of this paper the general manager of the Norfolk & Western Railroad has kindly furnished the following items of expense for that line:

___________________________________________________________________ | | | | | No. | Cost. | Average | | | | Cost. | |_________|____________|_________| | | | | Engines and tenders | 95 | $37,730.00 | $397.16 | Cars (all kinds) | 3,615 | 37,994.65 | 10.51 | Track, miles (including sidings) | 597.5 | | | Labor | | 25,296.96 | | Tools and supplies | | 3,531.12 | | Changing M. of W. equipment | | 813.13 | | Switches | | 571.67 | | Spikes | | 8,508.22 | | | | ---------- | | Total track | | $38,721,10 | 64.80 | | | ========== | | Total | |$114,445.75 |---------| Total average cost per mile | | | $191.53 | __________________________________|_________|____________|_________|

And the superintendent of the S.F. & W. R.R. has also furnished the expenses for that road:

___________________________________________________________________ | | | | No. | Average | | | Cost. | |__________|_________| | | | Engines and tenders | 75 | $76.31 | Cars (passenger) | 95 | 4.67 | Cars (freight) | 1,133 | 3.88 | Track, including sidings | 601.76 | 44.49 | ______________________________________________|__________|_________|

Nothing was said about shop or other tools, storage tracks, or changing of maintenance of way equipment.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF AVERAGE COST OF LABOR OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK. _________________________________________________________________ | M. & | L. & | E.T., V. | | | O. R.R. | N. R.R.| & G. R.R.| Average| |_________|________|__________|________| | | | | | Engines and tenders. | $170.88}| | {$45.71 | $108.29| Pass., bag., and ex cars | 7.97}| Not | { 4.38 | 6.17| Freight cars | 3.89}| divided| { 3.36 | 3.62| M. of W. cars | 9.98}| | { 4.64 | 7.31| Miles track (including | | | | | sidings, bridges, etc.) | 32.57 | $34.31| 19.26 | 28.71| Track tools, per mile | .30 | Not | .13 | .21| Temporary tracks | 162.03 | divided| 265.40 | 213.71| |_________|________|__________|________| | | Not | | | Total per mile of track | $70.38 | divided| $44.72 | $57.55| __________________________|_________|________|__________|________|

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF AVERAGE COST OF MATERIAL OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF WORK. _________________________________________________________________ | M. & | L. & | E.T., V. | | | O. R.R. | N. R.R.| & G. R.R.| Average| |_________|________|__________|________| | | | | | Engines and tenders. | $154.82}| | { $16.11 | $85.46| Pass., bag., and ex cars | 1.90}| Not | { .35 | 1.12| Freight cars | .51}| divided| { .24 | .37| M. of W. cars | 3.34}| | { 1.25 | 2.30| Miles track (including | | | | | sidings, bridges, etc.) | 12.80 | $13.02| 26.88 | 17.55| Track tools, per mile | 2.40 | Not | 1.67 | 2.03| Temporary tracks | 162.03 | divided| 40.04 | 101.03| __________________________|_________|________|__________|________| | | Not | | | Total per mile of track | $43.30 | divided| $34.34 | $38.82| __________________________|_________|________|__________|________|

SUMMARY OF STATEMENTS OF L.& N. AND E.T., V.& G. RAILWAYS.

The mileage changed of the L&N. and E.T., V.& G. systems combined aggregates 3,622 miles. The total cost of these two roads. $331,492.59 Or an average per mile of 91.52 Total miles changed was about 14,500 miles. Which would give total cost, at same rate. $1,327,040

We should really add to this a large sum for the great number of new locomotives which were purchased to replace old ones, that could not be changed, except at large cost, and which, when done, would have been light and undesirable.

Upon the basis of the work done upon the L. & N. and E.T., V. & G. systems, which, combined, cover about one-fourth the mileage changed, we have made the following estimates, which will, perhaps, convey a better idea of the extent of the work than can be obtained in any other way:

Miles of track changed, about 14,500 Locomotives changed, about 1,800 Cars (pass, and freight) changed, about 45,000 New axles used, about 9,000 New wheels used, about 20,000 Axles turned back, about 75,000 Wheels pressed on without turning axles, about 220,000 New brasses used, about 90,000 Kegs of spikes used, about 50,000 Cost of material used, about $600,000 Cost of labor, about 730,000 Total cost of work, about 1,330,000 Amount expended on equipment, about 650,000 Amount expended on track, about 680,000 Amount expended on track on day of change in labor, about 140,000

The work was done economically, and so quietly that the public hardly realized it was in progress. To the casual observer it was an every day transaction. It was, however, a work of great magnitude, requiring much thought and mechanical ability.

That it was ably handled is evidenced by the uniform success attained, the prompt changing at the agreed time, and the trifling inconvenience to the public.--_Jour. Assn. Engineering Societies._

* * * * *

TORPEDO BOATS FOR SPAIN.

In our present issue, on page 9948, we give illustrations of two torpedo boats, the Azor and Halcon, which have lately been constructed by Messrs Yarrow & Co., of Poplar, for the Spanish government. They are 135 ft. in length by 14 ft. beam, being of the same dimensions as No. 80 torpedo boat, lately completed by the above firm for the Admiralty, which is the largest and fastest torpedo-boat in the British navy.

The general arrangement of these torpedo boats is sufficiently clear from the illustrations to need but little description. Suffice it to say that the engines are of the triple compound type, capable of indicating 1,550 horse power, steam being supplied by one large locomotive boiler, which our readers are already aware is in accordance with the usual practice of the makers, as, by using a single boiler, great simplification of the machinery takes place, and considerably less room is occupied than if two boilers were adopted. It is worthy of record that although in some torpedo boats, and indeed in a great number of them, trouble has been found with the locomotive type of boiler, still we have no hesitation in saying that this is due either to defective design or bad workmanship, and that, if properly designed and constructed, such difficulty does not occur. And it is a fact that Messrs. Yarrow & Co. have already constructed a great number of locomotive boilers of the exceptional size adopted in these two Spanish boats, and they have turned out in every respect, after actual service, perfectly satisfactory.

The forward part of the boat is provided with two torpedo-ejecting tubes, as usual, and near the stern, on deck, it is proposed to place turntables, with two torpedo guns for firing over the sides, as already adopted by several governments. The trials of the Azor took place about two months since, giving a speed during a run of two hours and three quarters, carrying a load of 17 tons, of 24 knots (over 27½ miles) per hour. Since her trial she has steamed out to Spain, having encountered, during a portion of the voyage very bad weather, when her sea going qualities were found to be admirable.

The Halcon, whose official trials took place lately, obtained a speed of 23.5 knots, carrying a load of 17 tons. It may be remarked that a speed of 24 knots, in a boat only 135 ft in length, under the Spanish conditions of trial, is by far the best result that has ever been obtained in a vessel of these dimensions There is, however, no doubt that had the length of the boat been greater, a still higher speed would have been obtained But it was desired by the authorities to keep within the smallest possible dimensions, so as to expose as little area as practicable to the fire of the enemy, it being clearly evident that this is a consideration of the first importance in an unprotected war vessel.

In conclusion, we would add that the hulls of these two Spanish boats are of much greater strength of construction than is usually adopted in torpedo boats, it having been found that for the sake of obtaining exceptional speeds, strength sufficient for actual service has often been injudiciously sacrificed And, judging from the numerous accidents which took place at the recent trials off Portland, we have no doubt that in the future naval authorities will be quite ready and willing to sacrifice a little speed so as to obtain vessels which are more trustworthy. The necessity for this, we feel convinced, will be conclusively shown if ever torpedo boats are engaged in actual warfare, and this not only as regards strength of hull, but also as regards the machinery, which at present is only capable of being handled successfully by men of exceptional training, who in times of war would not be readily procured--_The Engineer._

* * * * *

THE SPANISH CRUISER REINA REGENTE

In our SUPPLEMENT, No. 620 we gave an illustration of this ship, with some particulars. The interest expressed in naval circles for further information induces us to give still further engravings of this remarkable vessel, with additional information, for which we are indebted to the _Engineer_.

We gave recently a short account of two of the trials of this vessel, and we are, by the courtesy of the builders--Messrs. Thomson, of Clydebank--enabled to lay further particulars before our readers this week. We give herewith engravings of the vessel, which will illustrate her salient points. The principal dimensions are as follows.

Length on water line, 317 ft., breadth, 50 ft. 7 in., depth moulded, 32 ft. 6 in., normal displacement, 4,800 tons, deep load displacement, 5,600 tons. We have before informed our readers that this vessel was designed by Messrs. Thomson, in competition with several other shipbuilding firms of this and other countries, in reply to an invitation of the Spanish government for a cruiser of the first class. The design submitted by the builders of the Reina Regente was accepted, and the vessel was contracted to be built in June of last year. The principal conditions of the contract were as follows.

The ship to steam at a speed of 20½ knots for four runs on the mile and for two hours continuously afterward. She was further to be capable of steaming for six hours continuously at a speed of 18½ knots, without any artificial means of producing draught. She was also to be capable of steaming a distance of at least 5,700 knots for 500 tons of coal, at some speed over 10 knots, to be chosen by the builders. Over the length of her machinery and magazine spaces she was to have a sloping deck extending to 6 ft. below the water line at the side, and formed of plates 4¾ in. thick. This deck was to extend to about 1 ft. above the water line, and the flat part to be 3-1/8 in. thick. Beyond the machinery and magazine spaces, the deck was to be gradually reduced to 3 in. thick at the ends. This deck is intended to protect the vitals of the ship, such as boilers, engines, powder magazines, steering gear, etc., from the effects of shot and shell, but the floating and stability maintaining power of the ship was to be dependent upon a similar structure raised above this protective deck to a height of about 5 ft. above the water.

This structure is covered by a water tight deck known as the main deck of the ship, on which the cabins and living spaces are arranged. The space between the main and protective deck is divided, as may be seen by reference to the protective deck plan, into many strong, water tight spaces, most of which are not more than about 500 cubic feet capacity. The spaces next to the ship's side are principally coal bunkers, and may, therefore, exclude largely any water that should enter. The first line of defense is formed inside these coal bunkers by a complete girdle of coffer dams, which can be worked from the main deck. These it is intended to fill with water and cellulose material, and as they are also minutely subdivided, the effects of damage by shot and consequent flooding may be localized to a considerable extent. The guns of the ship are to consist of four 20 centimeter Hontorio breech loading guns on Vavasseur carriages, six 12 centimeter guns, eight 6 pounder rapid firing, and eight or ten small guns for boats and mitrailleuse purposes, four of which are in the crow's nests at the top of the two masts of the ship. We may remark in passing that the builders saw their way at an early period of the construction to suggest an addition to the weight of the large sized guns, and there will actually be on the ship four 24 centimeter guns, instead of four 20 centimeter. The vessel was to carry five torpedo tubes, two forward in the bow, one in each broadside, and one aft. All these tubes to be fixed. To fulfill the speed condition, four boilers were necessary and two sets of triple expansion engines, capable of developing in all 12,000 horse power.

Now that the vessel has been completely tried, the promises by the builders may be compared with the results determined by the commission of Spanish officers appointed by the government of Spain to say whether the vessel fulfilled in all respects the conditions laid down in the contract. The mean speed attained for the two hours' run was 20.6 knots, as compared with 20.5 guaranteed, but this speed was obtained with 11,500 horse power instead of the 12,000 which the machinery is capable of developing. The officers of the Spanish commission were anxious not to have the vessel's machinery pressed beyond what was necessary to fulfill the speed conditions of the contract; but they saw enough to warrant them in expressing their belief that the vessel can easily do twenty-one knots when required, and she actually did this for some time during the trial.

During the natural draught trial the vessel obtained a mean speed of 18.68 knots, on an average of 94¾ revolutions--the forced draught having been done on an average of 105½ revolutions. The consumption trial, which lasted twelve hours, was made to determine the radius of action, when the ship showed that at a speed of 11.6 knots she could steam a distance of 5,900 knots. Further trials took place to test the evolutionary powers of the vessel, though these trials were not specified in the contract.

The vessel, as may be seen from the engravings, is fitted with a rudder of a new type, known as Thomson & Biles' rudder, with which it is claimed that all the advantage of a balanced rudder is obtained, while the ship loses the length due to the adoption of such a rudder. It is formed in the shape of the hull of the vessel, and as the partial balance of the lower foreside gradually reduces the strains, the rudder head may be made of very great service. As a matter of fact, this rudder is 230 ft. in area, and is probably the largest rudder fitted to a warship. The efficiency of it was shown in the turning trials, by its being able to bring the vessel round, when going at about nineteen knots, in half a circle in one minute twenty-three seconds, and a complete circle in two minutes fifty-eight seconds, the diameter of the circle being 350 yards. This result, we believe, is unrivaled, and makes this vessel equal in turning capabilities to many recent warships not much more than half her length.

* * * * *

FILM NEGATIVES.[1]

[Footnote 1: A communication to the Birmingham Photographic Society.]

Having had a certain measure of success with Eastman stripping films, I have been requested by your council to give a paper this evening dealing with the subject, and particularly with the method of working which my experience has found most successful. In according to their request, I feel I have imposed upon myself a somewhat difficult task.

There is, undoubtedly, a strong prejudice in the minds of most photographers, both amateur and professional, against a negative in which paper is used as a permanent support, on account of the inseparable "grain" and lack of brilliancy in the resulting prints; and the idea of the paper being used only as a temporary support does not seem to convey to their mind a correct impression of the true position of the matter.

It may be as well before entering into the technical details of the manipulation to consider briefly the advantages to be derived--which will be better appreciated after an actual trial.

My experience (which is at present limited) is that they are far superior to glass for all purposes except portraiture of the human form or instantaneous pictures where extreme rapidity is necessary, but for all ordinary cases of rapid exposure they are sufficiently quick. The first advantage, which I soon discovered, is their entire freedom from halation. This, with glass plates, is inseparable, and even when much labor has been bestowed on backing them, the halation is painfully apparent.

These films never frill, being made of emulsion which has been made insoluble. Compare the respective weights of the two substances--one plate weighing more than a dozen films of the same size.

Again, on comparing a stripping film negative with one on glass of the same exposure and subject, it will be found there is a greater sharpness or clearness in the detail, owing, I am of opinion, to the paper absorbing the light immediately it has penetrated the emulsion, the result being a brilliant negative. Landscapes on stripped films can be retouched or printed from on either side, and the advantage in this respect for carbon or mechanical printing is enormous. Now, imagine the tourist working with glass, and compare him to another working with films. The one works in harness, tugging, probably, a half hundredweight of glass with him from place to place, paying extra carriage, extra tips, and in a continual state of anxiety as to possible breakage, difficulty of packing, and having to be continually on the lookout for a dark place to change the plates, and, perhaps, on his return finds numbers of his plates damaged owing to friction on the surface; while the disciple of _films_, lightly burdened with only camera and slide, and his (say two hundred) films in his pockets, for they lie so compact together. Then the advantages to the tourists abroad, their name is "legion," not the least being the ease of guarding your exposed pictures from the custom house officials, who almost always seek to make matters disagreeable in this respect, and lastly, though not least, the ease with which the negatives can be stowed away in envelopes or albums, etc., when reference to them is easy in the extreme.

Now, having come (rightly, I think, you will admit) to the conclusion that films have these advantages, you naturally ask, What are their disadvantages? Remembering, then, that I am only advocating stripping films, I consider they have but two disadvantages: First, they entail some additional outlay in the way of apparatus, etc. Second, they are a little more trouble to finish than the glass negatives, which sink into insignificance when the manifold advantages are considered.

In order to deal effectively with the second objection I mentioned, viz., the extra trouble and perseverance, I propose, with your permission, to carry a negative through the different stages from exposure to completion, and in so doing I shall endeavor to make the process clear to you, and hope to enlist your attention.

The developer I use is slightly different to that of the Eastman company, and is as follows:

A. Sulphite of soda. 4 ounces.