Mr. E. A. Hadley (Missouri Pacific):-I note on page 150, if this formula is adopted, that it will change the wording in the Manual. Ballast is generally purchased by the cubic yard and generally the per cent. of sand in the ballast is specified, for instance, 35 per cent., which I understand to mean 35 per cent. of the original volume. It seems that in making their formula the Committee have omitted one of the component parts of the ballast, which is the voids, as without the voids the ballast will not properly serve its purpose, and should they add the voids in their formula they would still come out with 100 per cent. at the end. If the Committee's suggestion is adopted, it would add to the per cent. of sand in the ballast, and, as ordinarily accepted, it would amount to from 5 to 8 per cent., depending on the quality of the material. It seems to me in leaving out all consideration of the voids an omission has been made which should be corrected.

Mr. Hale:-The Committee considered that, but instead of making the sum of the per cents. of the ingredients equal to 100 per cent. by the old method (the method now printed in the Manual), taking into consideration the voids obtained, a percentage of voids of possibly 10 or 15 per cent., which is added to the percentage of other ingredients, the sum becomes 130 or 140 per cent. Your Committee investigated the methods of washing gravel by several of the gravel companies selling ballast by contract, and it found the method being used by the contractors similar to this method recommended by the Committee.

The Committee is not altogether satisfied with this formula in one sense, but it is by far the best that has been suggested. As to the present method printed in the Manual, your Committee is absolutely unanimous in recommending that it be abandoned, and furthermore, they are unanimous in recommending this formula as being the most satisfactory, where it is being used in practice by contractors and others.

Mr. Maurice Coburn (Vandalia Railroad) :-I would like to ask if the Committee considered the question of measuring by weight?

Mr. Hale: Your Committee has considered that, and the variation due to moisture was so great that they abandoned it. Several of the railroads, the Burlington and the Santa Fe, made quite a number of extensive tests by weight which were not satisfactory.

Mr. Hadley-I cannot agree with the Chairman of the Committee that the use of the per cent. of voids in the ballast would go to make 140 per cent., as the per cent. of voids properly used is a minus quantity. The sand runs into the voids in the gravel, partially filling them, the same as the dust runs into the voids in the sand, and if properly used, the per cent. would equal 100.

The President:-There is no motion before the convention. We will proceed.

Mr. Hale-With reference to the fifth paragraph, some of these clauses seem rather unnecessary possibly. The Committee has had so much trouble in getting samples properly tested that they found every clause here very important. I would like to make a motion that the

above method of testing quality of gravel for ballast be accepted and put in the Manual.

(Motion carried.)

The President:-This matter will be published in the Manual as recommended practice.

Mr. Hale: The carrying of this motion automatically cancels one paragraph of the Manual, on page 150: "The above will necessitate the cancelling of the following paragraph, on page 49 of the Manual.”

The President:-If there is no objection, this will be done.

Mr. Hale: Your Committee would like to recommend the following subjects for investigation next year

The President:-The Board will take cognizance of that. If there is no further discussion on this subject of ballast, the Committee will be relieved with the thanks of the convention. They have given us very valuable information in this report and in the appendices. The Chairman of the Committee states that he has one more point to present.

Mr. Hale-Mr. Rice, of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac, has some very interesting figures on the cost of washing gravel ballast. which, I believe, the Association will be interested in, as a good deal of this work is going on along the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac.

Mr. S. B. Rice (Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac) :-We are operating a ballast pit and washing plant on the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac and Washington Southern Railway, known as the RichmondWashington Line. This pit is located about the center of the line, that is. fifty-seven miles from Richmond and fifty-seven miles from Washington. We first started to handle this ballast as pit-run material and had good results from same. We afterwards concluded that we could get better track by the washing of gravel, and for this purpose a washer was installed and was started in November, 1908. Since that time the entire line has been reballasted with washed gravel. The average cost of loading per cubic yard was 8.95 cents, washing 11.34 cents, hauling II.II cents, placing in track 26.15 cents; or a total cost of 57.55 cents per cubic yard of finished track. These figures represent the average cost as near as could be gotten for reballasting the entire line.

A Member:-What was the average haul?

Mr. Rice: The extreme haul was fifty-seven miles. There were times when the cost of loading was as low as 6 cents per cubic yard. The pit varied in depth from 6 ft. to 22 ft., and, of course, the deeper the cut the less cost of loading. The long and short hauls made a difference in cost per cubic yard in the haul. These figures were made up after three years' work, or after the delivery of about 400,000 cubic yards. The track that was ballasted in 1908 is in good condition to-day. Of course, this track shows a little dirt from trains, but we have not had any bad or slop joints. With regard to the cost of maintenance: for the months of December, 1912, January and February of the present year we had an average labor cost of $19.00 per mile per month, or an average cost of 63 cents per mile per day. We have twenty-four through passenger trains over our line per day, as we are handling trains for both

the Atlantic Coast Line and Seaboard Air Line. Some of these trains are very heavy, that is, they consist of ten and twelve cars per train. We also have an average of twenty-two freight trains per day. The average tonnage of these trains is between 700 and 800 tons per train. We feel as if we had as good track with the washed ballast as could be gotten with crushed stone of any character.

Mr. R. C. White (Missouri Pacific) :-I would like to draw the Committee's attention to the table on pp. 148 and 152. In this table they give the percentages of gravel, sand and dust, but no reference is made to per cent. of voids in screened gravel. It strikes me that the percentage of voids in screened gravel is a very important factor in determining the amount of sand permissible in gravel ballast, and I feel that this should be given consideration. I would also suggest to the Committee that they discriminate between voids in ballast as a unit and percentage of voids in screened gravel as a unit, so as not to get the two confused.

Mr. Hale: Your Committee made last year quite a number of tests of the voids in gravel and it was the opinion of the Committee that it was not of sufficient value to present to the Association. In other words, while it was theoretically interesting, it was of no practical value to the Association, and we therefore did not include it in the report.

Prof. W. K. Hatt (Purdue University) :-On page 149 what is given

is the ratio and not per cent. Should not that be corrected?

Mr. Hadley-That is exactly my contention. I think the term per cent. is a misnomer on the basis in which the Committee has attempted to write the per cent. of dust or sand in gravel ballast.

Mr. Hale: The Committee will accept that suggestion, making it per cent. instead of ratio. It will be necessary to multiply the formula by 100 to indicate the per cent.

The Committee prefers to retain the term "per cent." because it is in common use by contractors and others. If it were not for that reason, the Committee would prefer to recommend that the proportion be stated in "parts" as in concrete mixture, “1: 3: 6," but on account of the term "per cent." being in common use the Committee prefers to retain it, and after discussing the various methods this was considered most practical and desirable.

Mr. R. C. White:-Referring again to the per cent. of voids on page 148, it reads, "the portion which would not pass through the 10-mesh sieve was calculated as gravel." That will hold back a good-sized rock. If we did not have a table showing the per cent. of voids in this screened gravel, we would be at a loss to determine the size of gravel permissible. The per cent. of the voids will aid us in determining the size of the gravel, and in a measure determine proportion of per cent. of sand permissible.

Mr. Hale:-That point came up before the Committee and is covered in the definition of "gravel" in the Manual, which is the material which will pass through a 21⁄2-in. ring, but was retained on a No. 10

screen.

The President:-If there are no further questions or remarks, the Committee will be relieved, with the thanks of the convention.

DISCUSSION ON BUILDINGS.

(For Report, see pp. 839-880.)

LIST OF SPEAKERS TAKING PART IN DISCUSSION ON BUILDINGS.

G. D. BROOKE.

MAURICE COBURN.

C. E. LINDSAY.
S. N. WILLIAMS.

The President:-Mr. Maurice Coburn, Chairman of the Committee on Buildings, will present the report of that Committee.

Mr. Maurice Coburn (Vandalia Railroad) :-The Committee had two subjects this year, on which work was done, the continuation of the work on roofing, and a report on freight house floors. We would like first to consider the report on freight house floors, page 879. In going over this report and attempting to make conclusions for the Manual, it was decided that we would ask that this entire report on freight house floors be printed in the Manual.

The President:-This matter has been before the members of the Association for some time. Unless it is specially requested that the paragraphs be read, it will be considered as before us for acceptance. Is there any objection to that method of procedure? We are ready to discuss any particular feature of the matter on pp. 879 and 880.

Mr. C. E. Lindsay (New York Central & Hudson River) :-I would like to call attention to the first paragraph, on page 879, and to a new development that has given rise to some question in our minds as to the permissible load per square foot, and that is the use of electric trucks in freight houses, transfer stations, etc., and the heavy concentrated loads that will result therefrom. We have a new freight house that was designed for 250 pounds loading per square foot, and since then we have adopted the electric truck, with very heavy loads. I do not advocate increasing that amount now, but I call your attention to what is coming so that we may prepare for it.

Mr. Coburn: The Committee will be pleased to insert in this report a paragraph stating that where there is any possibility of using these trucks that they should be considered. It seems to me that should be a part of this report.

Prof. S. N. Williams (Cornell College) :-I would like to inquire if Mr. Lindsay has any definite amount to suggest instead of 250 pounds per square foot?

The President:-The Committee will investigate that during the year and bring it up later.

Mr. Coburn-I move that this report, with the change suggested by Mr. Lindsay, be printed in the Manual.

(Motion seconded and carried.)

Mr. Coburn:-Referring to the discussion on roofing, the Committee will say they have combined the reports printed during the two

previous years.

We have gone over the reports in detail and have made minor changes at various points. We have succeeded this year in presenting a specification for coal tar pitch for roofing purposes. We do not feel that we know enough about this subject to recommend its adoption by this Association, but it has been adopted by the United States government, and we feel that it is the best specification that can be had at this time. We have endeavored particularly to fill out some of the latter parts of the original report on the miscellaneous roofings and to bring the entire matter up to date. We would like particularly to call your attention to the few remarks on pp. 864 and 865 with reference to corrosion, under iron and steel roofing. This subject has been assigned, as I understand it, to the Committee on Iron and Steel Structures also, but your Committee felt that, due to its vital importance to our subject, that it was very necessary to say something about it. We are expecting to keep in touch with the Committee on Iron and Steel Structures, and see to it that there is no confusion or unnecessary duplication in the future. As we prepared this report, we desired to change the last conclusion previously printed in the Manual, and to add two more. On page 870 we put this in. After doing that, when we came to discuss the freight house floors and to abstract that for conclusions, we decided it was impossible to abstract that satisfactorily, so we have asked you to put all of that in the Manual, as it seemed to us that the report on roofings contained a great deal of matter which should go into the Manual, just as much as the material on floors. For that reason we printed that paragraph on page 869. This brings up the whole question as to what should go in the Manual, and we thought we would put it up to you in this way; that we would perhaps first ask that conclusions on page 870 be adopted, and if they are carried, we will ask that the Association give us the privilege of abstracting this report, subject to the approval of the Publication Committee. The report is pretty difficult to abstract. There are here and there a few paragraphs which should not go into the Manual. It seems like a good deal of material to put in, and we are a little in doubt as to what should be done about that. To start with, I move the adoption of the conclusions on page 870, as they stand.

The President:-If there be no objection that motion will be considered adopted, with the understanding that the Committee will co-operate with the Committee on Publications and the proper material wil be put in the Manual. The Chairman of the Committee wishes the conclusions on page 870 adopted for publication in the Manual.

(Motion seconded and carried.)

Mr. Coburn:-I move that the Committee have the authority to abstract the report as it stands, for publication in the Manual, subject to the approval of the Publication Committee.

Mr. G. D. Brooke (Baltimore & Ohio) :-It seems to me that that is contrary to the usual custom. I would offer an amendment that the Com.mittee make these abstracts and present them in their next report.