4 
 
 1PATESTT COMTPOITHID) MAUL 1FOIR MAil M ; C 
 
 V V / 
 
 LIBRARY 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 
 V A 
 
 Wfittixe*- 4 *' X ‘ 
 
 
 
 © a ® © sd t m= 
 
 Sir, —The undersigned begs leave to submit tor your examination, 
 his “ Patent Compound Rail” for railways, a tolerably correct view of 
 which is given in the above engraving. Since this rail was first intio- 
 duced, (now nearly two years,) it has more than fulfilled the expecta¬ 
 tions that were entertained of it, and received the approbation of all 
 who have had it in use, as well as those who have examined it; an 
 increasing interest is being directed toward it in consequence of the 
 defects in the ordinary forms of rails, and which become more and moie 
 apparent the longer they are continued in use. The object aimed at in 
 the composite forms, is to 'produce, a rail which shall approximate as 
 nearly as possible to a continuous bar from one end to the other of the 
 road. I submit whether this is not practically accomplished by the 
 rail herewith offered. The cross joints in the common form arc avoid¬ 
 ed ; chairs, clamps, plates, or other contrivances lor securing the ends 
 of the rails, are rendered wholly unnecessary; no abrupt depressions 
 or elevations (occasioned by the settling of the rail at the joints) occur, 
 but a smooth and even rolling surface is obtained, over which the en¬ 
 gines and cars pass with scarcely any noise, and without any ol that 
 disagreeable jarring and oscillating motion usual upon the ordinary 
 forms of rails. 
 
 If these results attend the use of the compound rail, it follows as a 
 ^consequence that much of the wear and tear of l'ails and machineiy 
 r ' will he saved, for if the rolling surface be uniformly smooth, there will 
 . be no concussion between the surfaces at rest and in motion; and if no 
 j concussion, then the engines, cars, and rails will last longer ; so if there 
 \ be no cross joints in the track, there will be no depressions thereat, but 
 , a smooth plain obtained, and the power required to pull loads of equal 
 i-weights, or maintain equal speeds, will be less upon the compound than 
 $ upon any of the old forms of rails. But the advantages of a continu- 
 f'ous track over one composed of short bars laid together at the ends 
 with joints (and frequently with wide spaces) at every fifteen or tnent\ 
 
 feet, are too manifest to those familiar with the management of railroads 
 to need demonstrating at my hands/ It is admitted by all that the form 
 of rail in- common use is marked by serious defects, the chief of which 
 is at the joints, (the weak point in the track,) and any improvement 
 that obviates these evils, accomplishes a very important desideratum, 
 effects a great saving in current depreciation of both rails and machine¬ 
 ry, and correspondingly in the cost of running railroads, while it 
 increases materially the safety and comfort of all who travel thereon. 
 
 By way of showing that these claims are not advanced as mere as¬ 
 sumptions, I invite those interested in such matters to inspect the rail 
 in use. A word as to the cost of this rail: This, under certain cir¬ 
 cumstances, may be something greater than the common form, owing 
 to the enhanced cost of manufacture; this, however, cannot be much, 
 and is more than compensated by the improved quality of iron obtained 
 in a rail of this form, arising from the greater condensation of the 
 iron , while the cost of placing this rail upon the road is less than the 
 common form, the expense of rivets and riveting being less than the cost 
 of chairs, as shown by the following 
 
 Common or solid rail.— Cost of chairs, fitting same to rails 
 
 and cross ties, 528 joints per mile, at 55 cents per joint, ^ ^ 
 
 One extra spike at each joint is 528 spikes, two to the pound ^ 
 
 at 8 1-2 cents per pound, is .... 
 
 Compound Rail.— Rivets, 4,750, 5-8 diameter, at $300 00 
 
 three to the pound,* is 1,583 pounds to the mile at 
 
 4 3-4 cents per pound, is . ; .... .. W” j: 
 
 Riveting at 24 cents per rod is, per mile,. 1 ^ 
 
 Difference ft favor of laying one mile of track with compound 
 
 . .. .. $448 00 
 
 rail ,.* ... 
 
 oir about onc-and-a-half dollars per ton of iron. 
 
 781309 
 
There are ten miles of these rails upon the Utica and Schenectady 
 railroad. They are likewise in use upon the New-York and Erie, Phil¬ 
 adelphia and Reading railroads, and I refer to the annexed correspond- 
 ance for the opinions of the gentlemen in the management of those 
 roads, as to its merits. I think I am justified in saying that enough has 
 been done by way of trial to demonstrate the safety and economy of 
 this rail. 
 
 Orders for considerable quantities are now being executed for the 
 Hudson River, Rochester and Niagara Falls, Buffalo and Conhocton 
 
 Valley, Buffalo and Rochester, Utica and Schenectady, Syracuse and 
 Utica, Michigan Central, Madison and Indianapolis, Cleveland and 
 Columbus, and other leading roads in the country. 
 
 Commending the rail to your consideration, and if approved of solic¬ 
 iting your patronage, 
 
 I remain yours very respectfully, 
 
 JOHN F. WINSLOW. 
 
 Troy, N.Y. 7 " 185> - 
 
 NEW-YORK AND ERIE RAILROAD: 
 
 Way and Structure Department, ) 
 Engineer's Office, July 7, 1851. j, 
 
 J. F. Winslow, Esq., 
 
 Sir ,—I have very recently made a critical examination of the com¬ 
 pound or continuous rail put down on this road by Mr. A. B. Seymour, 
 in September 1849. This rail has now been in use twenty-two months, 
 on a portion of the main line, nearly two miles from any station, where 
 it has been subjected to the highest speed of a very heavy class of en¬ 
 gines and cars. According to the best of my knowledge and belief, 
 there has not been an hour’s work done in adjusting this rail since it 
 was first laid ; yet, it is now in good order, and shows but little of the 
 effects of wear and tear. 
 
 In my opinion this rail is the safest one in use, and with slight mo¬ 
 dification can be made as economical if not much more so, than the or¬ 
 dinary T rail. In many other respects I consider this two-part com¬ 
 pound rail as superior to any other with which I am acquainted. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 S. S. POST. 
 
 Oepice oe the Philadelphia & Reading R. R. Co., ) 
 
 Philadelphia, June 26, 1851. ), 
 
 J. F. Winslow, Esq., 
 
 Dear Sir ,—I duly received your favor of the 21st instant. The 
 compound rail seems to do perfectly well thus far. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 JOHN TUCKER, President. 
 
 Utica and Schenectady R. R. Opeice, ) 
 Schenectady , March 1st, 1851. ) 
 
 J. F. Winslow, Esq., 
 
 Dear Sir ,—Yours of the 4th of February, submitting various inter¬ 
 rogatories relative to the “ Patent Compound Railroad Iron ” furnished 
 by your company, and laid down upon this road, was duly received, to 
 which I shall reply in general terms, making the ordinary T rail the 
 standard of comparison. From my own observation and the experi¬ 
 ence of locomotive engineers, who are daily running upon the compound 
 
 in connection with the T rail, (which is superior ®f its kind,) I am clear¬ 
 ly of the opinion that there is a saving in the wear and tear to the ma¬ 
 chinery of at least twenty-five per cent. 
 
 In passing from the T to the compound rail with the trains, a much 
 higher rate of speed is attained with the same power, which can onlv 
 be attributed to the non-resistance of the joints. There can be no 
 doubt that a less expenditure of motive power is required upon the 
 compound rail in pulling loads of equal weight, but to what extent I 
 am unable to say. 
 
 In November, 1849, about one thousand feet of the compound rail', 
 furnished by you, was laid down in connection with the T rail, in the 
 main track, over which all trains passing westward from Schenectady 
 were run. This part of the track has not been repaired or adjusted, 
 nor has it required to be, while the T rail, which was laid at the same 
 time, and with great care, has required repeated adjustment; the ten 
 miles laid last fall has also kept in admirable adjustment. 
 
 The experience on this road, in that respect, is the same as upon all 
 others where the T rail is in use. A very large proportion of the ex¬ 
 pense of adjusting the track, is at the joint or end of the rail, which is 
 caused by the weakness or break in the track at that point. 
 
 This defect is entirely obviated by the use of the compound rail, 
 which gives an equal and perfect bearing upon all the cross-ties, there¬ 
 by reducing the expense of keeping the track in adjustment more than 
 one half. No part of the compound rail has broken or been thrown out, 
 while a large number of broken and defective bars of the T rail have 
 been removed ; neither has a wheel or shaft broken upon this part of 
 the rail. 
 
 No chair is required in laying the compound rail, the saving in ex¬ 
 pense of which I consider more than equal to the additional cost of 
 rivets, and riveting together the bars. Two or three rivets only have 
 broken, since the rail has been in use, which, upon examination, proved 
 to have been defective when driven. 
 
 Additional experience is wanted to determine the durability of the 
 compound rail, in comparison with the T rail, that the result will be in 
 favor of a compound rail, I see no reason to doubt.. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 C. VIBBARD, Sup'U 
 
EXTRACTS 
 
 From a Pamphlet recently published by B. H. Latrobe, Esq., Civil Engineer , entitled u Remarks, upon the Defects of Railway 
 
 Tracks , and their Remedy .” 
 
 -o—o- 
 
 Although tlie railway structure; in its simple elements, is not an invention of 
 modern times, (the Egyptians are supposed to have used it,) and although in 
 its more mature form, it is now upwards of twenty years old, yet it is still in a 
 progressive state, and is admitted on all hands not to have attained perfection, 
 but to be marked by some serious defects. The best evidence of this-, is the 
 great variety of opinions which still prevail in regard to the details of its form 
 and combinations. There is but little agreement among professional men. even 
 in the leading principles of the structure—that is, in regard to the section of the 
 rail, the mode of supporting it, the manner of connecting it at the joint, &c. 
 The undersigned has been an attentive observer of the constant agitation to 
 which these questions have been subjected, and has, as he believes, carefully 
 and impartially weighed the arguments for and against the 1 various ways propos¬ 
 ed for the accomplishment of the object which all have had in view, viz : a firm 
 yet somewhat elastic structure, well connected at the joints of the bars and 
 other points of contact of the different pieces composing the track, and yet 
 readily taken apart in the process of repair. His conclusion has been, that 
 there were radical defects in all the existing systems of form and combination 
 of parts, defects to be remedied only by a fundamental change in some of the 
 principles of the structure, and in his view the cure is as clear as the cause of 
 these imperfections. 
 
 A railway track has always heretofore consisted of a series of iron bars, of 
 greater or less length, and of various sectional forms, laid together at the ends, 
 and supported throughout their lengths in various ways. Care has usually 
 been taken to give these bars a sufficiency of strength in themselves, and their 
 supports, to make them form a solid and smooth surface, for the rolling of the 
 wheels upon them throughout their length; and if the bars could be incorpo¬ 
 rated together by welding at their ends, or in other words, if there were no 
 joints in the track, there would be little left to desire in any of the well built 
 railways of the present day; for, although the resistance of the soil on which 
 the track rests not being uniform, undulations will occur in the surface of the 
 rails, yet there would be no abrupt depressions or elevations, and the carriages 
 would oscillate with an easy swinging movement, attended by no concussion. 
 The rails, however, not being continuous, but terminating at every distance of 
 fifteen or twenty feet, the wheel has to pass from one to the other, over a very 
 narrow gap it is true, but one quite wide enough almost to annihilate the resist¬ 
 ance of the bar at that point as a beam, and to make it depend for its power to 
 hold up the wheel, principally upon the resistance of the substance supporting 
 it at that, spot, whether that substance be a longitudinal bearer or cross sleeper 
 of timber, or a stone block, according as one or other of these three systems of 
 support are used. Now, to give the bearer, or sleeper, or block, the resistance 
 necessary to compensate fully the loss of strength as a beam, which the bars 
 sustain at their ends, has been in practice found impracticable although an ap¬ 
 proximation thereto may be had by increasing the compactness of the road-bed 
 and the extent of surface bearing thereon at the joints. The approximation, 
 however, is always an uncertain and, at best, an imperfect one, and even in the 
 case of the continuous timber bearer under the rail, which would appear to 
 give the best support to the joints of the bars, the result is unsatisfactory; the 
 compressible character of the wood always permitting the rails to sink into it 
 more or less at their ends. The proved impossibility of effectually sustaining 
 the joints by increased compactness of road-bed, and provision of additional 
 bearing surface, has induced attempts to connect the iron bars at their points 
 of contact so as to form a splice, for the restoration of the strength lost at this 
 point. But all such efforts have proved abortive, the effect of the quick passage 
 of heavy trains being to shake and wear loose all the fastenings constituting the 
 splice, and it is now quite apparent that little more can be effected at the joints 
 than to keep the rails, vertically and laterally, sufficiently in place to permit the 
 
 wheel to pass safely from one' bar to another, and not always safely indeed, for 
 there are not wanting instances wherein disastrous accidents have been occasion¬ 
 ed by ther escape of the rail from what confined it at this point. The only real 
 splice that has been thus far applied to the joints of a line of rails, is the con¬ 
 tinuous bearing timber;, but this, in consequence of the yielding of the wood, 
 is much impaired in its effect, as already observed. 
 
 I make the preceding statements as well known facts, not denied by any one 
 at all experienced in the construction and maintenance of railways, or an observ¬ 
 ant traveler upon them. I could give, were it necessary, a mass of detail upon 
 the subject, collected in my own visits to various lines of railway, and in my 
 correspondence with my professional brethren all over the United States. Suf¬ 
 fice it to say, that the existence of the evil of bad joints, and' the difficulty of 
 dealing with it, is amply demonstrated by the variety of expedients to palliate 
 what is conceded to be incurable .. Upon one line, for example, are to be found 
 two cast iron chairs, weighing together 45 pounds, applied to each bar; and 
 upon another line no chairs at all, but the rails simply let into the sleepers at 
 the ends and spiked down. Upon other roads a chair weighing from 15 to 25 
 pounds, with a wooden key to hold fast the rail in it.. Upon others again chairs 
 weighing from 12 to 20 pounds, with - a lip on each side to lap tightly over the 
 bottom flanges of the rail. On others a simple plate to support the ends of the 
 bars and keep them sidewise in place, depending upon spikes to held them 
 down. On others the same plate with screw bolts in place of spikes; and last¬ 
 ly, upon one or two roads, two splice plates fitting on each side into the hollows 
 of the rail and drawn tight by screw or cotter bolts in a horizontal position. 
 None of these modes of making the joints secure, operate as a splice in effect, 
 or but partially at the first, for the violent blow given to the end of the bar by 
 every passing wheel, soon jars loose the firmest grip that these fastenings can 
 take. The wooden keys, besides their swelling and shrinking as the atmosphere 
 changes, soon loosen, and the continual driving of them up rapidly wears them 
 out. The spikes break, the screw bolts either snap off or have their thread 
 stripped, and the keys of the cotter bolts become bent and broken from driving 
 them up. The tight fitting clamp chair breaks-or wears loose in its lips. In 
 short, no fastening that can be applied at this point holds it long, and where, in 
 despair of getting any contrivance to stand, all are rejected and the rail is simply 
 nailed down upon the sleeper, the latter is soon deeply indented and rapidly 
 worn away by the bars it supports. These mischiefs are of course most observ¬ 
 able in the lines of heavy traffic and sometime in use. Upon the great trunk 
 line between Boston and Albany, opened in 1842, the clattering and thumping 
 of the joints was deafening when I passed over it in 1848; the chairs and ends 
 of bars having become loose in their fit, from the wear of six or seven years, 
 and on the same line large renewals of rails had then, and are now, annually 
 taking place, chiefly in consequence of the effect upon the ends of the bars of 
 the blows received there. ******* 
 
 It should be mentioned, while speaking of the difficulties of maintaining the 
 joints of a track, that the endwise movement of the rail, under the blow of 
 the wheel, is one of the most prominent. The bars are not all operated on 
 alike by this cause, and consequently, some being pushed further than others, 
 the openings at the joints become irregular, some being closed entirely, and 
 others widely open. This movement of the rail is a very dangerous one, and 
 unless watched, would soon force the rails quite out of their chairs, especially 
 upon double lines of railway, where the movement of the trains, on each track, 
 is always in the same direction. 
 
 The evils have been now, perhaps, sufficiently descanted upon, and we will 
 proceed to speak of their remedy. 
 
 Instead of making the rails in solid or single bars, laid end to end, it is pro¬ 
 posed to make them in parts combining to form the cross section of the rail; 
 
these parts breaking joints with each other, and held together by rivets, so as 
 to form in effect a continuous bar of compound structure, being as near an ap¬ 
 proach to an unbroken line of iron as it is physically possible to make. The 
 necessity of providing for contraction and expansion and for repairs to those 
 parts of the rail, which, from the unavoidable inequalities in the texture 
 of the metal, will require to be renewed at different times, manifestly 
 renders the welding of the bars together at their ends, impracticable. We must 
 then break up the body of the iron into parts, which may shrink and di¬ 
 late, and be removed and replaced, independently of each other; and the ques¬ 
 tion is, how this division of the mass shall be effected? Hitherto it has been 
 by simply cutting off the line at intervals, the mischiefs of which mode have 
 been fully shown. The other mode now proposed, is to divide the mass not 
 only cross-wise, but longitudinally; that is, not only in length but in section, 
 making the several parts resulting from this sectional division unite at different 
 points in the length of the line, so that the wheel will always be sustained by 
 the strength of one portion of the rail, while passing over the gap occasioned by 
 the division of another portion. It is, in short, nothing more than the applica¬ 
 tion of the “break joint” principle to rails, so long recognized, and so success¬ 
 fully used in carpentry and framing of every kind, and indeed, in the railway 
 itself, by those -who prefer the continuous bearing timber to the cross sleeper or 
 the stone block. By this division of the bar, a portion of its extreme strength 
 is relinquished, the compound bar being, at its strongest point, somewhat 
 weaker than the solid bar, in the middle of its length. But as the maximum 
 of strength is less in the compound bar, so the minimum is much greater, and 
 thus that approach to uniformity of strength is effected, which is the desid¬ 
 eratum; a structure presenting an alternation of very strong and very weak 
 points, being of all others the worst. It has been said, that the compound bar is 
 somewhat weaker in its strongest point, (which would be the point midway be¬ 
 tween any two contiguous joints,) than the single bar in the middle of its 
 length. But the difference would be less considerable than might be sup¬ 
 posed. I judge from an experiment made with a compound bar of fifty pounds 
 per yard, and a solid bar of similar weight, but of the bridge pattern. The two 
 bars, with a clear bearing of three feet, and under a strain of three tons, applied 
 to the middle of their lengths, exhibited the same deflection, although the com¬ 
 pound bar had one of its joints, (in one of the under sections,) between the 
 bearings. I do not quote the experiment as conclusive. It was but a single 
 one, and may have been under the influence of some circumstance not observed, 
 which gave too favorable a result for the compound bar. But while conceding 
 fully, that there is a reduction of the maximum of strength, the more than cor¬ 
 responding increase in the minimum, already claimed for the composite rail, is | 
 an invaluable acquisition. The loss of extreme strength is, however, not the 
 only objection that might naturally be urged against the compound rail, and, if j 
 that compound principle has been already thought of in England, its practical 
 application has probably been prevented by the objection now to be mentioned. 
 
 I refer to the supposed difficulty of connecting, in a substantial and satisfactory | 
 manner, the parts into which the bar is divided, so as to make them hold well 
 together without shaking, or working, or breaking, or looseness of any kind, 
 and so also as to permit them, at the same time, to yield freely to the effects of 
 changes of temperature. 
 
 In reflecting upon the subject, I am so strongly impressed with the superior-' j 
 ity of the compound principle as to feel amazed that it has not, long ago, been 
 adopted, and can only account for the fact that it has not, by this last consider¬ 
 ation, which, I confess, operated awhile upon my own mind, so as to make me 
 in the outset not entirely confident of its success. My professional friends, in¬ 
 deed, nearly all hung back at first upon this ground, admitting that the idea in 
 the abstract was a happy one; but fearing its defeat by the supposed impossibility 
 of holding the parts properly together. Nothing short of experimental demonstra¬ 
 tion would be satisfactory in this, more than in other cases. The fact that the 
 fundamental principles involved in the structure of the rail, were altogether in 
 favor of what was aimed at, did not seem to me to make a due impression. 
 Because the fastenings, by which it was attempted to connect the solid bars at 
 their ends, failed to perform their intended functions, so must the attachments ! 
 
 3 0112 077581202 
 
 of the compound barf But the distinction in the two cases, consists simply in 
 the prevalence in the two plans of two opposite principles; in the solid rail the 
 principle of concentration, and in the compound rail the principle of diffusion. 
 In the former, the whole shock experienced in passing the point of separation 
 of the bars, is concentrated at one point, the single joint; in the latter, the one 
 great shock is divided into two or three very much lesser shocks, and thus is 
 diffused with a greatly diminished intensity over the whole length of the bar, 
 and the fastenings being also similarly dispersed along the bar, the scattered 
 and softened concussions are effectually resisted by them. It w r ould be difficult, 
 indeed impracticable, to compare the different momenta of the mass which ex¬ 
 periences these shocks, in the cases of the two kinds of bars; as to do so, with pre¬ 
 cision, it would be necessary to know exactly the relative spaces through which 
 the wheel of the carriage would fall, in passing the single joint of the solid bar, 
 and the two or three joints of the compound bar. There can, however, be no 
 doubt that the sum of the momenta, in the latter case, would fall much within 
 the single momentum in the former case, and that, therefore, the carriage and 
 the rail would sustain much less injury from the shocks occurring in passing 
 over the compound bar. 
 
 But leaving the mathematics of the matter, I will go to ti e more practical 
 views to be taken of the subject, and to the light which the experience which 
 has happily been obtained, casts thereon. I have thus far discussed the priii0- 
 ple of the compound rail in the general, and without reference to any of the 
 various forms it may assume. But I will now say, that notwithstanding the 
 tardiness with which most of the engineers of this country, to whom the im¬ 
 provement has been submitted, have seemed disposed to yield their assent to 
 its value, there is a growing feeling in its favor. * * * * And if we admit 
 
 that the composite rail is, in the abstract, the best form, we have then to choose 
 between the possible varieties of this form, that may be suggested. * * * * 
 
 Were I compelled to choose I would take the simplest and most symmetrical of 
 them. ********** 
 
 I have no means of comparing the cost of maintaining a “permanent way,” 
 upon my plan with that of any of the various existing modes of construction , in 
 England. I am very confident, however, that the difference in favor of the 
 former would be very great indeed. * * * 
 
 I am satisfied that not less than a third of the labor of adjustment will be 
 saved, and the renewal of materials should be in at least as favorable a propor¬ 
 tion. * *********** 
 
 All that is required for this purpose being the cutting off the rivet heads with a 
 chisel. But this will be an operation rarely required, and the cheapness of the 
 rivets makes the cost of material a matter of little consequence. If I am right 
 in my suppositions, then the superior safety and smoothness of the new track, 
 attended by a considerable reduction in the cost of repairs to engines and car¬ 
 riages, and a great increase of public security and comfort, and consequently 
 an accession to the popularity of railways as a means of travel, would all com¬ 
 bine to place the value of the improvement in a very conspicuous position. 
 ******** 
 
 Among the merits of the compound rail, will be apparent that of retaining 
 its line in curves, better than the solid rail; the breaking of the joints producing 
 in the bearing rails a mutual counteraction of the tendency to straighten into 
 chords, after being sprung to the curve. With bars so long as 20 feet, it is 
 supposed that, even in the heaviest patterns, it will not be necessary to set 
 them, by previous bending, which, in the solid rail, would be indispensable. 
 
 A very remarkable advantage from the division of the rail into parts will also 
 be the improvement in the quality of the metal. The disposition to increase of 
 weight, has been checked by the difficulty of making a heavy bar perfect. It 
 is understood that the rails of 100 lbs. per yard recently rolled, have turned 
 out so indifferently as to induce a return to lighter patterns. However this 
 may be, .it is quite certain that a single bar of any weight cannot be made as 
 sound and tough, as two or three bars of the same length and aggregate section. 
 The compound principle will permit the tendency to increased weight of rail 
 to go much farther than would be possible in the single rail.