ACCIDENTS ON TERMINAL LINES, YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1917

FORMAL CASES AFFECTING TRANSPORTATION COMPANIES

Cases Nos. 2211, 2212, 2213, 2214, 2215, 2217, 2223 and 2224.— In these cases the principal street railroad systems of the City applied to the Commission for financial relief, some of them seeking such relief by asking for permission to charge two cents for each initial transfer granted, others asking for an increase in fare and still others for such general relief as the Commission might find it in its power to grant.

The presentation of the applications on which these cases were instituted was made in May and June, 1917, after the rising costs. due to war causes began to be felt. The railroads stated in general that, like practically every other business in the country, they were faced with advancing prices for labor, materials and supplies, until the point had been reached where the revenue derived from the five-cent fare, practically universal in New York City, no longer provided a margin to meet interest charges or, as was asserted in some cases, to meet actual operating expenses. The railroads stated that they must have relief, else receivership and bankruptcy seemed inevitable.

For some time previous to the filing of the formal applications, representatives of the railroad companies had conferred with members and officials of the Commission, setting forth their needs. Subsequently a conference of street railroad operating and managing officials was held in New York City and a general program mapped out. It was after this meeting that the applications were filed with the Commission. The Third Avenue Railway

system filed its petition on May 25, 1917. The applications of the surface railroad companies of the B. R. T. system and of the New York Railways system were filed on May 23. The Commission on May 28 set a hearing on the application of the Third Avenue Company for June 6, 1917 (Case No. 2211) to be followed by hearings on the applications of the New York Railways Company (Case No. 2212) and of the Brooklyn surface companies (Case No. 2214).

The New York and Queens County Railway Company under date of May 21 petitioned the Commission for general relief, stating that it was not earning its operating expenses and that it desired the Commission to take such action as would provide for some form of assistance sufficient to permit it to continue its operation without loss. On May 28 the Commission adopted a memorandum in reference to the application of this company (Case No. 2213) in which the company was advised that the Commission had no authority to make such an order as was suggested by the form of the petition and suggesting that a new petition or an amended petition be filed, asking for some definite form of relief upon which the Commission could predicate action. At the end of the year, however, the company had not revised its original petition or presented a new one.

The Second Avenue Railroad Company through its receiver petitioned the Commission on May 28 for such new regulations in regard to rates, fares, charges and transfer privileges upon or in relation to its lines, and otherwise to so exercise its authority, as to make possible the earning of a more adequate return upon the capital invested in this road. The petition stated that the company was willing to coöperate in any such measure of relief or adapt the road's methods of operation to any such plan as the Commission might devise to meet the exigencies. A memorandum of the Commission adopted on May 31 held that the

petition was not in form or substance addressed to matter over which the Commission had jurisdiction and urged the receiver to file a new or amended petition, setting forth specifically the form of relief desired. No new petition nor any amendment to the original petition had been filed by the end of the year.

All of the above applications had either been for a general relief or for permission to charge for initial transfers. On June 21 the Richmond Light and Railroad Company and the Staten Island Midland Railway Company, operating the street surface trolley lines in the Borough of Richmond, filed with the Commission petitions asking the Commission to grant an increase in the company's rate of fare from five to six cents (Case No. 2224).

In the meantime, on June 11, an application was filed on behalf of the New York and North Shore Traction Company for such portions of its lines as were being operated within the City of New York, seeking permission to increase the fare from five to seven cents (Case No. 2217). The company alleged, as had the other companies, that its earnings under a five-cent fare were entirely insufficient. Interest on the company's bonded indebtedness had been met, the application stated, but this was the only return to investors which had taken place through the operation of the road. The petition asserted, further, that it would not be possible longer to meet such interest.

In the meantime a number of hearings was held upon the application of the Third Avenue system. After these hearings had progressed for a certain time, the Commission made clear that it desired an appraisal of the Third Avenue properties, begun several years ago, to be brought up to date as a basis upon which to discuss a possible change in rate. The hearings in the Third Avenue case were thereupon postponed as well as those upon the applications of the New York Railways system and the surface lines of the B. R. T. system.

The Commission thereupon turned its attention to a consideration of the application of the North Shore Company, holding a number of hearings, which were closed on August 10. The Commission, however, had not reached a determination in this case or in any of the other cases at the end of 1917.

Case No. 2236-Hearings upon Motion of the Commission as to Continuity of Service, Increase in Motive Power, Improvement of Equipment, Service, etc., on Subway and Elevated Lincs of the Interborough Rapid Transit Company. The investigations begun under the title of this case were occasioned by a shutdown in the service on the Interborough subway on the afternoon of Saturday, August 25, 1917. The shutdown came at a time when thousands of passengers were homeward bound as a result of the half holiday and additional thousands were making their way via the subway to suburban parks and other pleasure resorts. Thousands of these passengers were either delayed for two or three hours or were prevented from traveling by subway altoother. Much dissatisfaction resulted.

The shutdown lasted approximately two hours. The sale of tickets was stopped shortly before two o'clock and before most of the home-bound half-holiday crowd had reached destinations. Trains continued running, in most cases empty, throughout the afternoon, but at somewhat infrequent intervals. About five o'clock regular service was resumed.

The shutdown was found to be due to the failure of the coal supply at the power-house at West 59th street, Manhattan, where is generated the current for the operation of trains. A barge of coal failed to arrive on time and made necessary the cutting out of several steam turbine generating units. The Commission's inspectors took .cognizance of the situation immediately after the shutdown was reported and an investigation of all its phases was promptly begun. Acting Chairman William Hayward immediately directed that a hearing be held on Monday, August 27, at 10 A. M., at which a thorough inquiry should be made.

Although the day following the cessation of service was Sunday, the Commission's staff managed to reach many of the witnesses desired, so that by Monday morning there was present in the hearing room of the Commission a substantial representation of the directors and operating officials of the Interborough Company. The first witness examined was Colonel Cornelius Vanderbilt, one of the directors. He was followed on the stand by ticket agents, operating officials and directors of the Interborough Company together with representatives of the two com

panies with which that company had coal contracts. It developed that one of these companies was the Berwind-White Company, an official of which, Mr. E. J. Berwind, was also a director of the Interborough Company.

In view of the fact that it was a Berwind-White coal barge which failed to arrive and caused the subway tieup, the Commission made a particularly searching investigation into the subject of the Interborough coal contracts and as to possible related causes for the shutdown. This investigation lasted for several days and developed that an insufficient coal reserve had been maintained at the 59th Street power-house and that officials of the Interborough Company had not been sufficiently alert in maintaining the reserve supply at a proper figure to warrant continuity of operation. As a result the Commission, in considering the evidence, issued two orders, one providing that a reserve supply of at least 5,000 tons of coal, or enough to last for about a week, should be maintained constantly at the 59th Street power-house. In the event that coal barges failed to arrive on time and the reserve supply dropped below the figure indicated, it was provided that prompt notice should be given the Commission. Several such instances have been reported since the conclusion of the hearings, but the supply in each instance has been properly replenished within a short time, so that the condition of the coal reserve at the power-house has not since been low. The Commission also adopted another order, providing that the Interborough should maintain a reserve supply of at least 4,000 tons at its 74th Street power-house, where current is generated for the operation of the elevated railroads in Manhattan and The Bronx. The supply here, on occasion, fell slightly below the minimum figure set in the Commission's order, but prompt replenishment followed, providing substantial compliance with the order.

It developed during the testimony that there was a connection between these two power-houses, technically known as a tie-line, that a certain amount of current was transferred from 74th street to 59th street, sufficient to keep the trains running empty through a part of the afternoon, and that if this tie-line had been of larger capacity, it might have been possible to transfer sufficient current, at least to carry a part, if not all, of the normal load of subway