EDITOR FORUM:-Referring to your reply to member Division No. 3, St. Louis, in September CONDUCTOR regarding questions asked by Mr. R. L. Daniels in regard to No. 87 and second 88 passing first 88.

I wish to place a spur track two or three miles long running to mines at some point between Corona and San Gallinos. My train goes off the main line on this spur to do some switching, and I as conductor remain at the main line or delegate a brakeman to remain there and watch for trains and signals displayed. In the meantime second 88 passes first 88 at San Gallinos, under your decision, and runs by this spur connection with no signals. Second 88 knows nothing about this train out on the spur and the man watching for signals, etc., is out in the weeds or in the dark, and calls second 88 No. 88 with no signals. When train returns to main line they proceed and run into your first section. Who is at fault-the extra which was on the spur, first No. 88, or your ruling? Please advise.

ANSWER-Our correspondent is laboring under a wrong impression. A reference to the original question will show that the protection given first 88 by the crew of first 88 has not been discussed or their ability to fully protect it questioned. In the September issue "Member Div. 3" asks what would prevent his paper extra from leaving his imaginary blind siding. Our present correspondent adds new complications and thinks he sees a wreck, while as a matter of fact he has overlooked the crew on first 88 entirely. Under these circumstances the crew of first 88 would be expected to obey Rule 105, which reads:

"Both conductors and enginemen are

responsible for the safety of their trains and, under conditions not provided for by the rules, must take every precaution for their protection."

First 88 would have no right to leave San Galinos without arranging for the protection of his train.

EDITOR FORUM:-Referring to your answer to a "Constant Reader" at Salt Lake, regarding change of time table.

Under rule 4 "B," is it not a fact that the American Railway Association eliminate all rules, or parts of rules, which become common law and do not insert any rule or law that is common, and practiced on all railroads and among all employes, unless it is necessary in order to be taken in connection with other rules?

Is it not a fact that a train has no date? That is, takes the date on which it leaves its initial point and retains the same date to the end of its run.

If this is not a fact, why are two forms given for annulling a train. There is, however, a train due to start from its initial point each day as indicated.

You say there is nothing to prevent two trains from running under èxample 2. I cannot agree with you. There is the same reason to prevent two trains from running as there is to prevent an entirely new train from running, and when it is scheduled to leave its initial point at 11:50 p. m. and the time table upon which it appears does not take effect until 12:01 a. m., does not the first paragraph of rule 4 “B” say:

"A train of the preceding time table shall retain its train orders and take the schedule of the train of the same number of the new time table."

Does not common sense and usage

teach us that it would be suicidal for a second train to run if one had left on the old time table which may take up the time of the new at any station?

Does the above portion of rule 4 "B" make any distinction in case midnight intervenes between the leaving time of the old and the new? If not, does this rule not apply in one case as well as the other? Then does not your unwritten law, which you claim would prevent the two trains, which are due to leave on same date, from running, apply as well to the two trains when midnight intervenes?

Does not the train which left on the old time table assume the schedule and retain orders of the train which is due to leave its initial point after midnight as well as before midnight? If so, are they not practically the same train on the night of change? If not, then the old train can not assume the new train's schedule.

If there is nothing to prevent both trains from running how far will the new train run?

If they can run to the point where the old train took up the schedule, by what means will the new train get this information? If from the dispatcher, by what route will the dispatcher get this information to them if the wires are down?

If there are two intervening non-telegraphic offices, how does the dispatcher know at which station the old train is waiting?

After the old train assumes the schedule of the new one and the new train arrives late at the station in question, what is to prevent a violation of your unwritten law, and there being two trains of same number over the same piece of track on the same day?

The rule appears very plain to me and I cannot understand how both trains can possibly exist between the initial point and the point at which the old train waits for time. If the train of the new time table does exist in this case then inferior trains must keep off of their time. If not, they need nothing against them.

The only way in which the train of

the new time table can run is in case the train of the same number is twelve hours late at the end of its run on the division before the one of the new time table is due to start from its initial point.

If the working of the telegraph wires are actually necessary to prevent accidents under a change of time table, then this rule 4 "B" should be knocked out, and rule 4 "A" used, which is a clearcut proposition and easier for train men to understand. But, however, from a selfish standpoint as a train dispatcher, I prefer rule 4 "B," which is perfectly safe if thoroughly understood. Kansas City, Mo. WM. NICHOLS,

Dispatcher U. P. R. R. ANSWER-It is evident that our correspondent does not understand rule 4 "B."

The complete identification of a train depends upon a date. The American Railway Association, the makers of the standard code, have ruled upon this point and delegate the protection of this train to the superintendent, there being but one day in which this state of affairs is liable to obtain.

Let us go over the situation again. No. 2 leaves terminal at 11 p. m. October 1 new card takes effect at 12:01 a. m. October 2 No. 2, on new card due to leave terminal at 1 a. m. Here our register shows a No. 2 October 1, but the register will not show a No. 2 October 2. The yardmaster is competent to start a No. 2 of October 2 on time, and the highest authority in the land upon the standard code recognizes this point. I hope it is clear to our correspondent. Our answer given in September number must stand as correct.

EDITOR FORUM-Referring to your answer, page 686, to Gilman of Laredo, Texas, you say "No. 2 can leave D 1 hour and 45 min. late." Gilman asked: "Can this train go to D and leave there 1 hour and 45 min. late?"

Your answer is not clear on the very important part of the question: "Can the train go to D 1:45 min. late?"

Your answer would convey the impression No. 2 could go to D 1 hour and

45 min. late. They have no right to under the rule. H. R. CHARLTON, Seattle, Wash. Dispatcher. ANSWER-This is indeed an important point and one that does not seem to be understood.

Nothing being said to the contrary, it is supposed that but one time is shown at D and this being the case it is the leaving time and does not govern the arrival of No. 2 at D. They have a right to arrive there as early as they can. An inferior train between C and D in either direction must be governed by the time of No. 2 at C, and in no case at D. Our correspondent is in error in saying that No. 2 has no right to arrive at D 1 hour and 45 min. late on the time at D.

EDITOR FORUM-Will you please give your decision on the following:

No. 6 leaves Kansas City 7 p. m., arrives Pattonsburg 11:45 p. m. on old card, Pattonsburg¡being end of K. C. & Middle division.

New card takes effect at 12:05 a. m., No. 6 due out Pattonsburg 12:05 a. m. on old card, but on the new card No. 6 due to leave Pattonsburg 11:50 p. m., which is end of division. This card went into effect Sept. 28, and our {dispatcher that was working this trick claimed there was no No. 6 out of Pattonsburg, and would not be any No. 6 till 11:50 p. m. of 28th on middle division.

Our book of rules says: "A train of the preceding time table shall, unless otherwise directed, take the time and rights of the train of the same number on the new time table." Now who, in your opinion, is correct, the dispatcher, or those who look at it in a different light? This dispatcher, who claims there was no No. 6 on this date in question, is an old conductor. He claims No. 6 could not assume the rights and time of a train that was not due out of a division point for 24 hours. The chief claims they could and that No. 6 should have run that much late. please give me your opinion? Milan, Mo:

Will you

H. J. DOYLE.

ANSWER-Under the rule quoted, also under Standard Code Rule 4 (B,), No. 6 had a right to leave Pattonsburg at 12:05 a. m., Sept. 28, taking the time and rights of No. 6 of the new card. This would make them 15 min. late. If No. 6 had been a new train with no corresponding number on old card, then they could not leave Pattonsburg as No. 6 until 11:50 p. m. Sept. 28.

EDITOR FORUM-I submit following order for Editor of Train Rule to pass upon:

C and E extra, Eng. 56. Wood will run extra and have right over train 49 from A to B. Arriving at B train 49 is there. Would I have a right to proceed as an extra to the end of my division without further orders, or having met train 49, would the words, "Wood will run extra" constitute a running order? Binghamton, N. Y. H. H. W.

ANSWER-In my opinion you have no right to proceed beyond B.

In this order only a part of form G has been combined with form C. The whole of form G should have been used in accordance with Rule 201, then there would have been no chance of misunderstanding the order.

EDITOR FORUM-Referring to rule in Standard Code of Rules, where it says, extra trains must display two white flags, and in addition two white lights by night, in the place provided for that purpose, what I want to know is this: On the C. P. R. they don't register these white signals, but they just put down nil in the space provided for that purpose, and on the N. Y. C. we register them the same as we would a green signal. Please say which is proper. Montreal, Can. ANSWER-A train carrying white signals should register "white" in the signal column to be consistent, however, it is admitted that a road may employ other methods of registering white signals successfully.

A. V. FIOLA.

The accompanying illustrations show our new patented "National Safety" Car Door Fastener, which fastener prevents the opening of the car door without destroying the seal and thus thwarts the well-known practice of thieves to pry with a lever or pinch-bar on the door staple holding the hasp in such a manner as to withdraw the leg portion of the staple from the wood, permitting the hasp to be slid out of position-then, after pilfering the contents of the car, to replace the hasp and press back the leg of the staple into its former position. It will be recognized at a glance that the lip or projection on the forward end of the staple, No. 15, effectually prevents such removal of the hasp.

The hasp "16" has been modified to adopt it for use, with the door staple with the door staple

E. E. CLARK, Editor.

C. D. KELLOGG, Associate.

On the 29th of October President Roosevelt issued the following Thanksgiving request to the nation:

"According to the yearly custom of our people, it falls upon the president at this season to appoint a day of festival and thanksgiving to God.

"Over a century and a quarter has passed since this country took its place among the nations of the earth, and during that time we have had on the whole more to be thankful for than has fallen to the lot of any other people. Generation after generation has grown to manhood and passed away. Each has had to bear its peculiar burdens, each to face its special crisis and each has known years of grim trial, when the country was menaced by malice, domestic or foreign, when the hand of the Lord was heavy upon it in drouth or flood or pestilence, when in bodily distress and anguish of soul it paid the penalty of folly and a froward heart.

"Nevertheless, decade by decade we have struggled onward and upward; we now abundantly enjoy material well being, and under the favor of the Most High, we are striving most earnestly to achieve moral and spiritual uplifting.

"The year that has just closed has been one of peace and of overflowing plenty. Rarely has any people enjoyed greater prosperity than we are now enjoying. For this we render heartfelt and solemn thanks to the Giver of

Good, and we seek to praise Him not by words only, but by deeds, by the way in which we do our duty to ourselves and to our fellow men.

"Now, therefore I, Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States, do hereby designate as a day of general thanksgiving, Thursday, the twentyseventh day of the coming November, and recommend that throughout the land the people cease from their ordinary occupations, and in their several homes and places of worship, render thanks unto Almighty God for the manifold blessings of the past year.

"In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, nine hundred and two, and of the independence of the United States, the one hundred and twenty-seventh.

"THEODORE Roosevelt. "[SEAL] By the President:

"JOHN HAY, "Secretary of State." The proclamation in itself is original and unlike the general run of such state papers. In fact the usual Thanksgiving proclamation seems to have been in a measure stereotyped, and the real voice of the chief magistrate wanting, President Roosevelt strikes the keynote to human sympathy and toil when he