New-York tribune., 1903-05-06
ELECTRICITY FOR TRUNK LINES.

The conviction was expressed by Mr.. Cor
nelius Vanderbilt last December in THE North
American Review that while the electric OPP
Grafton Of trunk line roads is feasible from an
engineering point of view, 1t would not prove
advanta geous financially. This argument is
reviewed in the May number of the same
periodical by G. L. de Muralt. Swiss engl-
neer who has been closely identified with cleo
tric traction in his own country and who has
repeatedly visited the United States. The dis
cusson is confined mainly to the points raised
by Mr. Vanderbilt On two of these the 1or-
eigner agrees with him. 1t Is conceded thaI
the cost of fuel would be the same under the
two systems of operation. No claim is made
that the maintenance Of the road would be less
expensive in one case than in the other Upon
two or three other vital questions NJ de Murait
reaches different conclusions from the author OF
the first North American" article.
AT fhe outset it is assumed that the railway
company would obtain its current from outside
CORPORA tions engaged in lighting running
trolley roads in cities along the route but would
build its own transmission line. Transformers
for reducing the voltage would be located on
the electric locomotives. and rot in sub-sta-
tions Allowing for losses in distribution, NJ
de Muralt thinks that electricity ought not to
cost over eight-tenths of a cent a horsepower
hour at the driving wheels. For the average
weight of passenger trains he adopts 200 or
25G tons, and 800 tons for freight trains. 1t is
then estimated that electricity enough to move
one of the former for an hour would cost
61a cents and one of the latter 1872 cents, If
the current were derived from steam power
station These figures are almost identical with
those given for steam locomotive service with
coal at 81 ton: cents and 10 cents respec-
lively If water power available there
would be a very great reduction. In a later
part of his paper NJ. de Muralt says that if the
New-York Central would take its current from
| Niagara, the st. Lawrence and the upper Hud-
son it would effect IAN additional saving OF
more than $1,500,000 yearly Entirely aside
| from this possibility, though, a distinct econ
omy would result from the fact that an electric
| locomotive is lighter than a steam engine and
| tender. It would have smaller load to handle
and would require less power. The advantage
| would be even more marked with switching
| locomotives. On the whole, the Swiss engineer
| is satisfied that the power consumption would
be reduced 10 per cent.
| The other expenses of operation are taken up
! in detail and several possibilities Of saving
noted. Water and water tanks for locomotives
| could be dispensed with; and there would be
an estimated reduction of 90 per cent for such
supplies as oil and waste and % per cent on
| labor AS a contribution to this last form of
economy, it is suggested that the motor and
baggage car might be combined for certain
classes of service. 1t is admitted that the cost
of repairs on machinery proper and running
gear would probably be as great for electric
! locomotives for the present type of motor.
According to good authorities, though, 20 per
cent of the charges for repairs steam en-
gines is due to boilers, II to boiler lagging and
painting TO smokebox and 13 to tender, 80
per cent altogether. When NJ. de Muralt ap-
plies these discounts to the operating expenses
of the New-York Central and Pennsylvania
roads-as he does in impressive table-he
gets an annual reduction of 81. 1927 06 for
the former and s3,93S.353 81 for the latter. He
| believes that transmission line ought not TO
cost over $4,000 or 81 600 mile. An allowance
of 10 per cent this fresh investment OF CAPT
tai, for interest and sinking fund, would mean