that the order was all right and that no harm could come to extra 55 by accepting the order, and he probably looked upon the conductor as bringing up a purely technical objection. But it was more than a technical objection, it was a practical objection. If trainmen can

being connected to the bottom arm. This method would, in either case, result in an increased valve travel and is about the only method that could be used to decrease the lead unless you would increase the lap of the valves. This, however, would necessitate either new valves

or

false valve seats. As stated above, however, we would suggest that you do not try to change the lead, or, at any rate, before changing it correspond with the builders of the locomotive, namely, the Lima Locomotive Corporation of Lima, Ohio, giving them the factory number of the engine, and they could advise you of what changes to make if desirable, or else give you their reasons for giving the

amount of lead stated.

2438. Pronunciation of the Word "Mallet."—"There seems to be considerable discussion regarding the correct pronunciation of the word 'Mallet' relating to the articulated engine used here. I sometimes hear it pronounced M-a-le, but am anxious to know just which is correct."-G. E. B.

Answer. The word is pronounced as though it were spelled M-a-l-l-a-y, giving the "a" in the first syllable the same sound as the "a" in father, and placing the accent on the second syllable.

Train Rules and Train Practice

Answers by G. E. Collingwood. 761. Should Refuse Superseding Order When Original Order is Not Held.— "Please note the following order and advise correct practice: Order No. 4, Extra 55 west meet extra 602 east at C instead of D.' The conductor of extra 55 refused to sign the order as he had received no other order concerning extra 602. Both the dispatcher and the chief dispatcher insisted that the order was all right and that the conductor should sign it."-Member 537.

Answer. The conductor was justified in refusing to sign for the order for the reason that he could not fulfill it. The order which he was asked to sign was a superseding order, superseding a supposed meeting point with extra 602 at D, and the conductor was acting safely and within the rules when he refused to sign for it.

which do not harmonize with the orders which they already hold, then we are making a mistake when we annul or supersede an order at all, and we are taking the position that because the distrainmen ought to know without the forpatcher understands what is wanted the mality of receiving orders to cover the

movements.

In safe practice, if the first order was not to be delivered to extra 55, then it was the duty of the dispatcher to annul order. Further than this, the conductor the first order and issue a new meeting may reasonably know from the wording of the order that there was a previous

order issued to his train which he has

not received. He is being asked to supersede a part of this order, but as he does not hold the order he cannot fulfill the supersedure, nor can he know that the first order did not contain another meeting point or something which concerns his train. In case the first order contained another movement which affected extra 55, what would happen to the conductor and engineer of extra 55 if they accepted the superseding order without protest? Would they not both be guilty of gross neglect of duty?

A short time ago a passenger train was wrecked and several persons killed because of a failure on the part of a dispatcher which involved the same point as this under discussion. The original order was annulled before the extra had reached the point at which it was placed and a superseding order issued which failed to supersede all of the first order. In the light of reason it is only fair to state that any dispatcher who permits or insists upon a conductor accepting such an order is incompetent of judgment.

It is the plain duty of trainmen and enginemen to refuse to accept any order which it cannot fulfill, and instead of being criticised they should be commended for vigilance in duty.

762. Change in Terminal Station."We changed time-tables at 5:30 a. m. No. 207 was due to leave A, its initial September 14th. station, at 10 p. m., arrive at L at 5 a. m. and reach Z, its terminal station, at 9:05 a. m. L is a junction point where

On the old time-table

the branch on which Z is located leaves the main line. This branch is not a subdivision, but is operated as a part of the division.

"On the new time-table the time of No. 207 is the same at each station as it was on the old time-table. The class, etc., are also the same except that it is scheduled from A to L instead of from A to Z, the train being discontinued from L to Z.

"No. 207 of September 13th was annulled. Would an extra leaving L for A at 6:30 a. m. September 14th, need the annulment of No. 207? Does not the change of terminal stations kill the schedule of the 13th under Rule 4?"C. M. W.

Answer.-Providing that the main line and the branch are being operated as one division, and providing further that your Rule 4 states that schedules on each division date from their initial station on such division, then schedule 207 would be of no effect and an extra leaving L, or in fact an inferior train leaving any point on that division on September 14th, after 5:30 a. m., would not require the annulment of No. 207 of September 13th, as Rule 4 automatically cancels the schedule at 5:30 a. m., September 14th.

Rule 4 is very clear on this point and No. 207, whether annulled on the 13th or not, could not run after the new timetable took effect at 5:30 a. m. September 14th. But at 10 p. m., September 14th, the new time-table would authorize the schedule and this would require inferior trains to keep clear as usual. Part of Rule 220 governs this movement as well as Rule 4. The part of Rule 220, governing, reads, "Orders held by or issued for or any part of an order relating to a regular train become void when such train loses both right and schedule as prescribed by Rules 4 and 82, or is annulled."

763. Extra Movement-Day of Leav. ing. "Please give your understanding on the following cases:

ran light from B to C and received an order reading, 'Order No. 1 is annulled at C.' Order No. 1 was the number of the order to run extra from A to E.

"Engine 30 returned to the wreck and after the main track was clear it used order No. 1 to run on from B to C, claiming that order No. 1 was still in effect to C."-Member 650.

Answer.-An order for engine 20 to run extra from A to C only provides for one movement of the train from A to C. The fact that engine 20 on its first movement to B displayed markers indicated that the train was complete and that the order to run extra had been fulfilled from A to B. If it then became necessary for the extra to return to A for the rear end, it was also necessary for an order to be issued directing engine 20 to run extra from B to A and return to B. If after receiving the first order at A the train had to be cut to permit of getting over the hill which extended to B, the movement might have been accomplished by leaving a flagman at A and also at B to protect it, but in the long run it is according to rule and best to have an order to run extra in cases like this one. As a matter of fact there is no authority in the rules for a movement of this kind being conducted under flag, and certainly in this particular case engine 20 had no authority to make the second trip to B on the first order.

The words, "day of leaving" can consistently mean only the date of leaving; however, The American Railway Association has ruled that the words refer to the heading of the schedule in which it states that the schedule is in effect "daily" or "daily except Sunday," etc. Such a ruling is not in keeping with the Standard Code of Rules and, if it is to stand, will take away the effectiveness of Rule 4 and bring up the old question of the date of schedule, which question everybody thought was settled by the words, “day

of leaving."

"Please explain the full meaning of the words, 'Day of leaving,' as they appear in Rule 4.

"Engine 30 was given an order to run extra from A to E. Extra 30 had a derailment at B which blocked the main track. B is a blind siding. Engine 30

makes an additional requirement which in no way strengthens the rule but which materially weakens it. Therefore, the writer is prepared to defend the position which he has taken and stand for a constructive interpretation which will give safe and sane operation under Rule

4, a thing which cannot be expected if the words referred to are permitted to be explained away as a part of the days on which the schedule is good. Such part of the schedule takes care of itself without a special rule to cover it. For further information on this refer to last month's Magazine, under the heading of "Movement of Trains."

The case of extra 30 is similar to that of extra 20. An order to run extra cannot be used for more than one movement as indicated by its language. When the order was annulled at C extra 30 was dead, and any movement made thereafter must be made under the rules.

764. Withdrawing a Section.-"It is desired to withdraw first No. 92, engine 366, at F and run it extra from F to A. No. 92 is a train moving from Z to A, and extra 377 is moving from A to Z. "Engine 366 is on first, engine 397 on second and engine 386 on third No. 92. It is desired that after engine 366 is run extra, it be directed to meet extra 377 at D. As it stands, extra 377 is to meet second No. 92, engine 397, at G and third No. 92, engine 386, at H but after these trains reach F they will become first and second No. 92 to A. How can a meet be made between extra 377 and these trains Extra 377 is at D, first No. 92 at F, second No. 92 at I and third No. 92 at J."-C. H. M.

Answer. To fully advise all concerned is one of the essential movements in a case of this kind. It would require three orders to fully comply with the rules, as follows:

Order No. 1, addressed to extra 377 and all sections of No. 92, "Engine 366 is withdrawn as first No. 92 at F following sections change numbers accordingly."

Order No. 2, addressed to engine 366 and first and second No. 92 at F, "Engine 366 run extra F to A ahead of first No. 92 and meet extra 377 at E."

Order No. 3, addressed to first No. 92 at E and extra 377, "Extra 377 west has right over first No. 92 D to F and will hold main track at F."

This brings extra 377 to F where it can ascertain from the register that first No. 92 has registered its arrival at F, or, if no register, it can obtain this information from the train dispatcher, after which it can proceed to meet second No. 92 at G and third No. 92 at H on the orders which it held before first No. 92 was run extra from F.

In a case of this kind the extra must have authority to disregard first No. 92 from D to F, notwithstanding the fact that it knows, by the orders which it holds, that it has authority to meet the

train which will oecome first No. 92 from F, at G. But because extra 377 holds nothing against first No. 92 to F it must be given an order as indicated.

765. Not Necessary to Supersede an Order Which Can Be Fulfilled Without Being in Conflict with Other Orders.— "The superior direction of trains is east. From A to D is east. No. 2, a first class train moving east, receives order No. 8 at B, No. 2 engine 900 run one hour and fifteen minutes late B to D.' When No. 2 arrives at C it receives order No. 15 reading, 'No. 2 engine 900 run two hours and fifteen minutes late C to D.'

"The engineer of No. 2 made a request that order No. 8 be annulled, but the request was refused. No. 2 is due at Cat 3:14 a. m., and at D at 3:50 a. m. No. 2 arrived at C at 7:12 a. m., which is three hours and fifty-eight minutes late.

"It is claimed that because No. 2 was over one hour and fifteen minutes late at D, which is its terminal station, before order No. 15 was issued at C, that it was not necessary to annul or supersede order No. 8, but under this plan No. 2 was three hours and ten minutes late at its terminal station when order No. 15 was issued, and if it was not necessary to annul or supersede order No. 8, then how can order No. 15 be a proper order?"Member 485.

Answer. Whether or not an order should be superseded or annulled depends upon its effect upon the movement of trains under the rules. It is equally true that orders once in effect continue so until fulfilled, superseded or annulled; however, when the fulfilling of an order does not affect the movement of the train which holds such order it would seem best to permit the order to be fulfilled.

The order used is known as Form E, and the explanation to this form states that the example quoted makes the schedule time of the train named, between the stations mentioned, as much later as stated in the order, and any other train receiving the order is required to run with respect to this later time, as before required to run with respect to the regular schedule time.

The writer has always questioned the language which is employed in the above explanation, for the reason that it states that the order makes the "schedule" time of the train as much later as stated. This statement is misleading because the definitions and other rules do not permit of a schedule time being given or created by train order, and because of this the framers of the rule should have been more careful in the choice of language employed to explain the right conferred. By turning to the definitions it will be found

that the schedule is a part of the timetable; how then can the schedule be conferred by train order? Further, Rule 201 states that orders are for movements which are not provided for by time-table. It will be seen that the explanation does not harmonize with the fact as to the movement desired; but laying this point aside, and viewing this case on its merits, under the present rules, it will be found that if No. 2 runs one hour and fifteen minutes late or more than one hour and fifteen minutes late from B to D, it has fulfilled order No. 8, and, inasmuch as No. 2 was over one hour and fifteen minutes late at its terminal station when order No. 15 was issued, the necessity for superseding or annulling order No. 8 is not apparent. The same statement is true of order No. 15; it was practically fulfilled before No. 2 received it, although it was probably placed at C some time before No. 2 received it at that station, because the rules require the dispatcher to give a copy of such an order to the superior train before he can give it to the inferior train.

Order No. 8 and order No. 15 do not conflict nearly as much as the rules which govern their application, and as a superior train which holds an order to run one hour and fifteen minutes late and another to run two hours and fifteen minutes late can fulfill both by running two hours and fifteen minutes or more late, there does not appear to be any good reason why the order to run one hour and fifteen minutes late should be either annulled or superseded. It must be understood in this connection that an order to run one hour and fifteen minutes late does not require that the train run exactly that late, but a train holding such an order can fulfill it by running later than the time stated.

Answer. The two orders confer no right upon the extra to run from U to S. Because of this, order No. 2 is improper as it contains instruction which is outside of the limits of extra 4, and extra 4 cannot fulfill such instructions.

767. Change of Time-Tables.-"On the old time-table No. 96 is due to leave its initial station A, at 11:30 p. m. on September 5th; a new time-table takes effect at 12:01 a. m., September 6th, on which No. 96 is shown as being due to leave A at 9:10 p. m. Can No. 96 assume the new schedule at the point where it finds itself when the new time-table takes effect? If the new time-table schedule made No. 96 due out of its initial station at 1:10 a. m. would it make any difference? There is no change of class or anything else except time on the schedule of No. 96."-Reader.

Answer. A schedule of the new timetable which corresponds with a schedule of the old time-table in all respects, except as to time, gives authority to a train using such a schedule to assume the new time-table schedule providing that the change of time does not put the available schedule on a different date from its initial station.

No. 96 of the old time-table may assume the schedule of No. 96 of the new time-table which is due to leave its initial station at 9:10 p. m., for the reason that the schedule is only made two hours and twenty minutes earlier, but is still due to leave its initial station on September 5th, so far as the available schedule for No. 96 of the old time-table is concerned.

In case No. 96 of the new time-table

was due to leave its initial station at 1:10 a. m., the only available schedule for No. 96 to assume would be the schedule due to leave its initial station on