CLOSURE BY THE AUTHOR.

The writer takes this opportunity of expressing his appreciation of the many interesting points and suggestions that have been brought out in the discussion of the paper.

Before specifically commenting on the individual discussion, the writer desires to draw attention to an (apparent) error in the paper, which appears in Table 17, page 551 (May issue), under the statement covering the output of the Cos Cob Station. In that statement the fixed charges are named as 1.8 mills per k.w.h. This statement is based upon certain discounts allowed by the railroad company on installation charges, and also does not include depreciation. For outside comparative purposes, however, the rate of 1.8 mills should be changed to 2.9 mills, the latter figure being based upon an eleven per cent. rate on the total investment involved, carrying with it interest, insurance, depreciation, and taxes. The total cost, therefore, for current would become 8.01 mills per k.w.h. instead of the rate named in the paper of 6.91 mills, the former and larger figure being then in form as previously stated for comparative purposes.

I am indebted to Mr. H. P. Davis, vice-president of the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, for his valuable discussion, and it is hardly necessary for me to point to the fact that not a little of the success in the application of high-tension alternating current to heavy traction systems is due to Mr. Davis. In particular are we indebted to Mr. Davis for the system of control that is used for electrical sectionalization, and, while the New Haven system now in service has been modified considerably to conform to the rearrangement of its circuits to reduce to a minimum electromagnetic induction, the earlier and basic elements which were worked out largely under the suggestion and coöperation of Mr. Davis are found in the system now controlling our entire lines.

Mr. Davis's long connection with the development of heavy electric railway equipment lends authority to his voice in commenting on the proper treatment which should be accorded electrical equipment. It might be said of electrical as compared to steam equipment, that it is possible to get twice as much out of it and it is four times as different, and the brains and fingers that are to handle the electrical equipment should have an electrical rather than steam instinct governing them, for the rapid progress

and success of the application of electricity to heavy traction railways will largely depend upon the recognition of these simple facts.

Of the various departments of a railroad, covering respectively Executive, Traffic, Transportation, Legal, Operating, and Engineering matters, it were natural and seemingly logical to assign an electrification problem to its Engineering Department, and yet the advance of the art in the application of electricity for heavy traction purposes has been so rapid that I venture the opinion that ninety per cent. of the chief engineers of all the roads in this country, being so perfectly unacquainted with the underlying principles of the generation and application of electricity, would shrink from such a responsibility. It is to be noted that a few roads have placed their Engineering Department under the jurisdiction of their Operating Department, under which arrangement an assignment of the problem to the Engineering Department jeopardizes still further the desired result. The railway company will do well, therefore, when it decides to make so radical a change in its motive power, involving millions of dollars, to assign that responsibility, solely to a man qualified to assume it, and also to see to it that his hands are not tied by having to report to officers in the Engineering and Operating Departments, who are unacquainted with the governing principles of electricity; indeed, on the contrary, it is my opinion that these departments should be requested by the president to coöperate to the full with the officer responsible for the work, thus clothing rather than robbing him of the authority so essentially necessary in producing an electrical plant to accomplish an electrical result.

As the above is true in the matter of electrical engineering and construction, it is to a very great extent true in the matter of operation, and, as pointed out in the paper, while no radical change is necessary in the general railroad organization of to-day, I cannot too greatly emphasize the absolute truth that when a railroad company has adopted electricity to be its motive power the operating officials should state the schedules and consist of trains, and then abide by the decision of the electrical officer (whose duties might be defined as "in charge of electrical engineering and construction and the features of electrical operation") as to what power, both generative and motive, is necessary.

In the past there has been an appalling attitude on the part

of officials of some steam railroads electrifying-rather than welcoming the selection of electrically-trained men for positions such as superintendents of electrical shops, road foremen of electric engines, master mechanics for electric engines, to insist that these positions be filled by men who have occupied seemingly analogous positions under steam locomotive conditions, notwithstanding their past environment, experience, and adaptability to the new and different conditions confronting them make them unfit, both from a safety and economic standpoint, to serve. Railway managements are now waking up to these facts, and in the last year great improvement in the electrical personnel of the operating departments has resulted. There is much along these lines to be accomplished yet, and dire necessity has as much as anything brought about the real and final awakening of a differentiation between electrical talents that apply and those of steam that do not. This information is too vital, and, indeed, as it constitutes the very rivets and gusset plates of the electrification bridge over which we are crossing to more economic, safe, and satisfactory railroading, it has a fitting place here. It has been a strenuous past; the bills have all been paid, and as sure as they represent the millions of dollars lost in the past, so do they equally represent the millions of dollars to be saved in the future, and so at least we can say it has taught us "how not to do it."

Referring to Mr. McHenry's comments: It has always seemed to me that electrification has been an advantage to "the many at the expense of "the few." While it is true that electrification for economy's sake bids fair to preëmpt the use of it for necessity's sake, still it is fair to believe that the consideration of electrification of city terminals carries for the present a more popular justification, and if it can be proved beyond doubt that the electrification of city terminals imposes a financial burden upon the railroad, it would seem to me that Mr. McHenry's suggestion of an "outside" tax should find justification.

In Mr. George R. Henderson's valuable contribution to the paper an excellent point is made with regard to the uniformity of traffic being a most important adjunct in securing the economies of electrification. In nearly all the situations of electric power generation and distribution we seldom, if ever, hear of one wherein a one hundred per cent, load factor obtains. There are

thus certain hours in a day, and in railroad work generally two (if only the passenger service is operated by electricity), when the power requirements are at a maximum. It is thus seen that at all other times of the day and night full advantage is not being taken of the total electrical investment. Realization upon Mr. Henderson's suggestion is to a large measure accomplished by the electrical movement of freight as well as passenger, as the maximum power demand for the former can be made to follow at the time of minimum demand for the latter. Those who have studied the matter of load factors in their application to lighting and street railway properties have accustomed themselves to such figures as from thirty-five per cent. to forty-five per cent. and sometimes reaching fifty per cent. load factor. I have no doubt it will be of interest to state that in plotting the combined load curves of the New Haven passenger, freight, and switching services without any rearrangement of the schedules as they are made up to-day a load factor of seventy-five per cent, is secured, which figure, I am sure Mr. Henderson will agree, bespeaks the uniformity of the density of traffic at least in the New Haven case. It is apparent, therefore, that in the study of electrification equal consideration should be given to both freight and passenger

movement.

With regard to fuel saving, if the economy of generating units remained fixed, it would be fair to grant Mr. Henderson's point with regard to the change of ratio from fifty per cent. to sixty-five per cent. On the other hand, the thermal efficiency of generating plants is easily keeping pace with that of steam locomotives, and, granting this, there are no other constants or variables which will tend to alter the ratio of one or two in favor of the fuel economy of drawbar pull by central electrical stations versus steam locomotives.

Mr. Henderson's point with regard to the transfer of steam locomotive power to different divisions of a road where congestion may require is interesting; I can conceive, however, of a division electrifying, with economy, not inclusive of the financial credits due to the steam locomotives replaced, thus automatically providing steam locomotives for service in the congested districts. The principal value of Mr. Henderson's observation on this matter to me is in pointing out that every electrification is a study in

itself, and in electrifying one division its effect may be felt in many different ways in other divisions.

I am indebted to Mr. F. E. Wynne for his unit analysis of investment cost. I think that he has transformed electrification investment into a very unique and interesting basis for consideration. His assumption with regard to the limitation of passenger locomotive and multiple-unit car mileages is entirely correct; the morning and afternoon suburban traffic to and from New York City, with its close headway, makes the problem of securing high car and locomotive mileage most difficult.

Answering Mr.. Wynne's question as to the statement of increased reliability of operating when electric was substituted for steam service, I would advise that this was, as he surmised, upon a failure basis. A fair average for steam locomotive operation might be cited as 5000 miles per engine failure, whereas electrical operation certainly should be 12,000, and in a number of instances on the New Haven it has been as high as 18,000, and it is my understanding that both the Pennsylvania Road and the New York Central Road have reached figures higher than this, our own mileage having been lower than the others, due chiefly, I think, to the requirement of the dual A. C.-D. C. operation.

I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Wynne that the maintenance and repairs on electric locomotives should be compared to those of steam upon the basis of equal service and weight on drivers.

Again I find comfort in Mr. Wynne's emphasis of the highest importance to securing the proper electrical administrative forces in the electrified zones of steam railroads.

Answering Mr. Wynne's inquiry with regard to Table No. 17, as explained in my general note forward to this discussion, no allowance was made for depreciation under fixed charges.

Mr. Philip Torchio's contribution is of great interest, and shows the trend and possibilities of large central-station power in the field of electrification. The introduction of an alien power to produce drawbar pull upon a railroad is certainly a departure from past practice. The acceptance of this practice hyphenates the name of the mechanical superintendent, and the central power stations who have relieved him of a part of his duties will do