the end of the year 1911 were not suited in one or more particulars to meet the variables in fuel, locomotives, and operating conditions, notwithstanding the fact that all the stokers applied up to that time actually had bona fide records of successful trips under certain conditions.

That practically all such stokers had been designed without due consideration having been given to the usually severe requirements imposed upon strength of parts and correct mechanical design by the stress of operating conditions and the lower maintenance standards. obtaining in railroad as compared with industrial service.

That the size of locomotives, particularly as to grate area and the tonnage hauled per train under the existing conditions of service. up to the end of the year 1911, did not make mechanical stokers an absolute necessity.

That there was no evidence available to lead to the conclusion that a mechanical stoker would make it possible to fire a locomotive any more economically than with hand-firing when the same amount of work was performed by the locomotive in each case.

I will show you later, and illustrate to you the difference in efficiency of the boiler on any locomotive at the point where the stoker locomotive is ordinarily worked, as compared with the efficiency of the same boiler further back, within the capacity of one locomotive fireman.

That no advantage was being taken, to any appreciable extent, of the fact that, with mechanical stokers, large locomotives might be operated nearer to their maximum rated capacity than when hand-fired.

That nothing had developed up to that time to indicate that any less expensive fuel could be used for firing locomotives with a mechanical stoker than with hand-firing.

That it would not be possible, as claimed by some of the stoker inventors and promoters, to do away with the regular locomotive fireman and have the work done by a helper.

That labor-saving devices are not usually applied to any great extent simply to reduce the grade of or character of the labor-nor are they put into general use solely for the purpose of uplifting the grade and character of employment.

That, therefore, the only consideration left as an argument for

the general application of mechanical stokers to modern locomotives was the possible reduction in the amount of physical labor and suffering of the regular fireman sufficiently to enable him to do the work without other relief.

Reference to the history of the exploitation of labor-saving devices leads to the conclusion, regrettable as it may seem from a humanitarian point of view, that labor-saving devices are not purchased purely for the purpose of saving labor, unless there is some financial return-some conserving of energy or some contribution to the wealth of the individual-the purchaser-or the community at large. Otherwise labor-saving devices are not apt to be kept in general

use.

Now, that was about the situation, up to the end of the year 1911. About that time, conditions changed somewhat; a new factor came in-two new factors, in fact, one of which, however, was not the prime cause for bringing into use the mechanical stoker. I will only mention that factor this one time tonight.

At the Traveling Engineers' Convention in Chicago a few days ago, one paper on the subject of the mechanical stoker presented for consideration the fact that the mechanical stoker would do away with a second fireman. Now, railroads will not buy stokers for that purpose. I know it, because I have tried to sell them to them for that purpose.

There is another, and a real reason for the use of the mechanical stoker, which I shall try to show you when I show you the pictures of the locomotives, that I want to show, that are equipped with mechanical stokers, and I will describe to you the work that is being done by those individual locomotives.

The other reason arises from the fact that the conclusion is now being reached that the locomotive is about the only thing, in the last analysis, on a railroad, that earns money; and therefore the more money that you can make a locomotive earn, the better the returns will be in the matter of cost of moving the traffic, a thousand tons one mile, or a thousand tons one mile per hour, or a thousand tons one hundred miles per hour, or any other unit that you may want to bring your analysis down to.

I want to show you, as the main part of my talk here tonight, and to assure you of the fact that that is the real reason and the real purpose of the mechanical stoker.

It will be of interest to you, of course, to see the stokers themselves; I will try to show you something of all of the stokers that are now in existence, and some of the more recent ones that have passed out of existence for one reason or another.

As a matter of fact, the economies that are brought about are not in the firing itself; they are not in the matter of making it easier for the fireman; they are not in less clinkers or less ashes or a half dozen other things; but they have to do with putting into service a locomotive which means less cost per thousand tons one mile. Now, if that means the coming of higher wages and shorter hours and other limitations which may be forced upon us, we must get all we can out of every mile that the locomotive goes.

If we can get more locomotive mileage by increasing the coal consumption, then we must do that.

I think I will be able to show you by illustrations that the mechanical stoker in its way contributes sufficiently to the wealth of the individual, the purchaser and the community to bring it outside of these labor-saving devices which might be applied only for the purpose of saving the fireman's back.

The stoker is put on for other reasons, and I think I am safe in saying that the larger locomotives in use today would not be made possible if it were not for the advent of the mechanical stoker.

Before proceeding further with the general aspects of the subject, I should like to have you familiar with the details of the machines and some of the locomotives on which they are in use.

This is a plan view of the Barnum underfeed stoker. This was one of the stokers applied to locomotives experimentally and later on removed. One of the other slides will show the locomotive to which this stoker was applied. This stoker is of the under-feed type, having two or more stoking troughs placed longitudinally of the firebox. This drawing shows seven of the stoking troughs, but only three or four were used in the actual installations. The troughs were supplied with cast-steel helicoid screws, the flights of which were reduced in size at different points in their length, each diameter being about two feet long, and at the offset, where the reduction in flight took place, deflectors or partial partitions were provided, with an aperture equal only to the next reduced diameter of the flight of the screw. The effect of the use of these deflectors was to cause the coal to be lifted up out of the stoking troughs and forced over on to the grate areas at each side, and, of course, part of the coal was carried on through the reduced openings in the partitions until the next deflector was reached, where more coal was deducted from the quantity being forced along in troughs, and this continued until part of the coal had been carried to the extreme forward end of the firebox and forced up out of the trough by the bottom being slightly inclined upward. These stokers were operated by the use of two double-acting steam engines, one placed on each side of the locomotive at the end of the cross shaft. The screws were driven with worm drive, the worms being on the cross shaft and the worm wheels being at the back end of the cast-steel screws. Separate crushers of ample capacity were placed on the locomotive tender to prepare the coal.

Seven or eight of these stokers were applied and at least four or five of them saw considerable service with quite a number of different kinds of fuel and on locomotives of different types, at least one each being applied to a Switch, a Prairie, a Mikado, and a Decapod type of locomotive.

The difficulty with this particular machine was probably more from mechanical shortcomings than from any inherent defects in the general scheme, although the results were not equally satisfactory with all kinds of coal used. It will be readily appreciated that with the method used in firing with this stoker, there would not be the flexibility of control of the fire that will be noted with other stokers which will be shown and described.

This is a general plan view drawing showing the forward part of the conveying mechanism of the Gee overfeed scatter type of stoker and also the movable directing wings which are placed above the firing plate at the bottom part of the ordinary fire door. One of these stokers has been applied to a consolidation locomotive on the Pennsylvania Railroad, and is in operation in regular service today, firing the locomotive successfully. A crushing mechanism is placed at the back part of the conveyor of this stoker, which also serves as a measuring or feeding device to start the coal into the forwarding means of the conveyor.

This view also shows a cross-section of the forwarding vanes of the conveyor. These are not made all in one piece, but are practically fingers which drop back of the coal in the backward movement of the reciprocating conveyor and serve to push part, or all, of the coal in their vicinity forward, to be engaged by the next succeeding set of fingers in the following action of the conveyor. The reciprocating action of this type of conveyor accomplishes the purpose not only of forwarding the coal but of partially measuring it and serving it to the firing plate in separate charges, and the steam blasts are operated in timed relation to the forwarding of these separate charges of fuel, and serve as plungers to inject the coal into the firebox in very much the same manner as it would be fired with a scoop.