Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. New York Air Brake Co.

• Decision Date: 16 December 1902
• Docket Number: 33.
• Parties: WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE CO. v. NEW YORK AIR BRAKE CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

119 F. 874

WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE CO. v. NEW YORK AIR BRAKE CO.

No. 33.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 16, 1902

Charles Neave and Frederick P. Fish, for appellant.

George H. Christy and Frederick H. Betts, for appellee.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.

TOWNSEND Circuit Judge.

This cause comes here upon an appeal of the defendant in the court below from a decree of the United States circuit court for the Northern district of New York sustaining claims 4 and 8 of patent No. 401,916, granted April 23, 1899, to George Westinghouse, Jr., and Frank Moore, for an engineer's brake valve. The railway automatic quick Action brake system with which this engineer's brake valve is connected has been fully discussed in prior decisions in this court. (C.C.) 59 F. 581; 11 C.C.A. 528, 63 F. 962; (C.C.) 65 F. 99; 16 C.C.A. 371, 69 F. 715; (C.C.) 77 F. 616; (C. C.) 112 F. 424. In this system the brakes on the train are released and held in their normal or running condition by means of fluid pressure, communicated from a main reservoir to the train pipe. An engineer's brake valve is mounted on the cab of the locomotive engine, and controls the passage of air between the main reservoir on the locomotive and the train pipe and triple-valve appliances throughout the train. The earlier engineer's brake valves were equipped with what was known as a 'three-way cock.' Patent No. 259,710 granted to N. J. Paradise in 1882, covers such a cock in connection with a spring valve for maintaining an excess of pressure in the main reservoir over that in the train pipe. In this device, when the engineer wished to release the brakes, he threw the handle of the cock back to the extreme limit of its movement in one direction. This served to establish an unobstructed passage between the main reservoir into the train pipe charged it and its auxiliary reservoirs with compressed air, and released the brakes from the cars. When the required running pressure had been secured, the engineer, by a short forward movement of the handle, closed said direct passage, and opened an unobstructed passage through said excess pressure spring valve, which was so graduated as to compensate for train-pipe leakage, and allow the requisite amount of main-reservoir pressure to always feed through it, and keep the brakes in what is known as 'running position.' When the engineer wished to slow down or stop, he moved the valve handle still further forward, so as to close communication between the main reservoir and the train pipe, and to open the train pipe to the atmosphere, and permit escape to the air. This was known as the 'service position' of the brakes. As soon, however, as the engineer thought that the train-pipe pressure had been sufficiently reduced by the resultant brake application, he moved the handle back a short distance, so as to close all the ports, and hold the brakes at the point at which they had already been set. This position was known as 'lap position.' When the engineer desired to make a quick application of the brakes he moved the handle to the extreme limit of its forward travel, and this opened the train-pipe discharge passage to the atmosphere, causing a quick application of the brakes. This was known as 'emergency position.' That this three-way cock was practicable by the exercise of due care is shown by the testimony of Mr. H. Herman Westinghouse, one of complainant's witnesses, to the effect that his brother, one of the patentees herein, when descending a grade on an experimental 50-car train, and after the engineer had failed to properly apply the brakes 'operated the engineer's valve in a way that effected a moderate and complete reduction throughout the entire train resulting in the setting of every brake, thereby causing a very material decrease in the speed. This gave an opportunity for releasing and restoring pressure to the reservoirs for further applications, so that the descent was conducted with entire safety, and at a very moderate rate of speed. ' Thus, in this device, the engineer, by moving the handle of the cock, was able to so vary the connections between the main reservoir and train pipe and the outer atmosphere as positively and directly to control the operation of the brakes, and to put them either in release, service, lap, or emergency positions. But the operation of this cock on long trains was attended with serious difficulties, especially in slowing down, or making of service or station stops. These difficulties arose from the fact that, when the engineer wished to slow down or make a service stop, he must open the valve for a short distance only, let out a comparatively small amount of air, and close the valve again. As a result of this action, the reduction of train-pipe pressure first became effective at the forward end of the train pipe, causing an application of the brakes in the forward cars, and thereafter the air surging or rushing forward from the rear portion of the train, and being unable to escape, accumulated in the forward end of the train pipes, and by reason of its momentum raised the pressure there, thus releasing the forward brakes. In these circumstances the train was likely to be pulled in two, with serious resultant damage. As stated by counsel for complainant, the new problem was 'to secure, in ordinary or 'service' stops with long trains, an approximately uniform reduction of train-pipe pressure throughout the length of the train pipe, so that there will be no release of brakes at the front end of the train, due to the forward surging of an appreciable excess of pressure over what then existed at the other end. ' It was found to be impracticable to rely upon the judgment of the engineer to so manipulate the valve that it would accommodate itself to the pressure of the surging air, varying by reason of differences in the speed and length of trains. It was, therefore, necessary, in slowing down or making service stops, to provide for an automatic slow closing of the engineer's valve after the requisite amount of air had been discharged. That the patent in suit covers a means for accomplishing this object which is practical and successful, is proved. But defendant contends that the objections referred to were also obviated by the prior valves known as 'B12' and 'C7' engineer's valves, made and sold by the Westinghouse Company, and that C7 was a practical valve, and embodied all the essential elements of the patent in suit. It is only necessary to consider the C7 valve, which was the later and simpler of the two. The evidence as to its commercial success is conflicting and inconclusive. During the years 1887 and 1888 complainant sold 2,116 of said valves, of which more than one-half were returned. It was operative, however, when in proper condition, was successfully used, with slight modifications, by complainant, on an exhibition train of 50 cars, and was in practical use on railway trains for nearly 10 years. Defendant's expert admits that its practical operation was subject to certain disturbing influences, and that 'the remedy for obviating or preventing such disturbing influences to a sufficient extent was embodied in the valve of the patent in suit.'

The objects of the invention of the patent in suit, as stated in the specification, were as follows:

'Primarily, to provide for such gradual opening and closure of the valve which controls the discharge of air from the brake pipe as to cause a substantial equalization of pressure in the brake pipe and uniform application of the brakes throughout the length of the train, and obviate the liability to release the brakes on the forward cars in long trains, which has heretofore been found to be induced by an inequality of pressure in the brake pipe, occasioned by the quick release of a considerable quantity of air and the sudden closure of the discharge valve thereafter, and from which the breaking of the train into two or more sections has sometimes resulted. A further object of our invention is to effect a simplification of structure, and prevent the access to the valve-operating piston of grease or other foreign matter tending to clog or interfere with its free and normal movements.'

Claims 4 and 8 are as follows:

'(4) In an engineer's brake valve, the combination of a valve casing or chamber; a main air-reservoir connection and a brake-pipe connection leading thereinto; a direct supply port formed in a valve sent in the chamber, and adapted to establish direct communication between said connections; a movable abutment fitted to work in a chamber in the casing, communicating on one side of the abutment with the brake-pipe connection; a discharge valve connected to said abutment, and controlling a passage from the brake-pipe connection to the atmosphere; an equalizing supply port leading from the abutment chamber to the valve seat on the side of the abutment opposite to that which is open to the brake-pipe connection; and a regulating valve working on the valve seat, and controlling the direct supply and equalizing ports, substantially as set forth.'

'(8) In an engineer's brake valve, the combination of a valve casing or chamber; a main air-reservoir connection and a brake-pipe connection leading thereinto; a direct supply port formed in a valve seat in the chamber, and adapted to establish direct communication between said connections; a direct exhaust passage leading from the valve seat to the atmosphere; a discharge valve controlling an independent exhaust passage from the brake-pipe connection ion; a movable abutment connected to the discharge valve; and a regulating valve controlling ports by which,

...