could not be made by the company for the delivery of materials needed for the work. Frequent inspections were made by the Commission's Electrical Engineer, and the Commission on June 1, 1917, was advised by the company that all work called for by the order, which specified that the company should rerail its tracks in Bergen street between Buffalo and Rochester avenues, had been completed. The statement of the company was borne. out by the Commission's engineers.

Case No. 2164-The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company and Brooklyn City Railroad Company-Condition of Roadbed and Tracks on Nostrand Avenue between Flatbush Avenue and Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn.-The Commission, on its own motion, undertook an investigation of the tracks of these two companies between the points mentioned. Its engineers had reported the track to be in very bad condition, with numerous low and broken joints, split rail-heads and out of alignment. It was also reported that, despite the condition of the tracks, cars were operated over them at a high rate of speed, which created an unusual and serious situation, owing to the fact that Nostrand avenue is the site of subway construction with sections of the tracks undermined and supported on timbers. Before beginning the proceeding the Commission advised the operating officials of the two companies that the tracks should be repaired forthwith and that motormen should use greater care in operating the cars and should run them upon a slower schedule. The Commission, however, was informed by its engineers that the motormen were not exercising sufficient care, and on December 6, 1916, directed that a hearing be held and an investigation made of all conditions relating to the operation on Nostrand avenue in the vicinity of the points mentioned. One hearing was held on December 11, at which time the proceeding was closed after several witnesses had testified as to the conditions observed and to the potential danger which existed because of the manner of operating the cars. Testimony was put in to show that several accidents had occurred, that derailments were frequent and that serious accidents had been narrowly averted on similar occasions. It was testified that motormen frequently made more than ten miles per hour on a portion of the tracks.

On January 10, 1917, the Commission adopted an order directing the two companies to rebuild the tracks between Flatbush avenue and Eastern parkway, the work to begin concurrently with the laying of the permanent pavement subsequent to the completion of the subway construction work; within thirty days to make all repairs or changes required to put the road into a safe and comfortable operating condition; pending the general reconstruction of the tracks to keep them in a safe operating condition, and to operate cars at a speed not to exceed ten miles an hour.

The companies objected to some details of the order. These objections were met by an amending order adopted by the Commission on January 17, which did not, however, materially change the terms of the original text. The companies agrced to accept the order in so far as it was physically possible to do so.

The Commission's engineers continued to observe the operation of cars over the section of the line in question and noted on several occasions that cars exceeded the speed limit set forth in the order, notice to this effect being served upon the company. Reply was made that the company was doing and would continue to do its utmost to obtain full compliance with the order. The Commission will continue observation of the operation until the subway work in Nostrand avenue is completed and the terms of the order have been fully complied with by the laying of new track.

Case No. 2150-New York and Queens County Railway Company Complaint of Adolph J. Gretschel, et al., as to Transfers at Intersection of Vernon Avenue and Queensboro Bridge.— The complainant in August, 1916, addressed the Commission, pointing out that if the railway company, operating a trolley line in the Borough of Queens, were to grant transfers to and from the lines crossing the Queensboro bridge, reached by elevators in the bridge towers at Vernon avenue, traffic conditions might be improved and a large number of persons accommodated with a shorter route to and from Manhattan at a single fare. Investigation was made by the Commission's Transit Bureau, which reported that there seemed to be no reason why transfers should not be granted at the point named. The Commission, through the Secretary, formally requested the company to establish the

transfer point. W. O. Wood, President and General Manager of the New York and Queens County Railway Company, refused, on the ground that there was no physical connection between the tracks on Vernon avenue and the tracks on the bridge level, nearly 100 feet above, and therefore the company did not feel under obligation to grant the transfers.

Thereupon the Commission, on October 26, 1916, directed that a hearing be held on November 20 for the purpose of determining whether the railroad company should be ordered to grant the transfers in question. A hearing was held on the date mentioned, considerable testimony being taken and the proceeding closed, the company reiterating its objections. President Wood was one of the witnesses examined and stated that the company, in his opinion, would receive no benefit from the granting of the transfers and that the transfer business might seriously affect the operation of the cars across the bridge. Several other witnesses, however, stated that the transfer privilege would be of great benefit to many persons and that the company would not in reality lose any revenue by the grant, inasmuch as the same result could be obtained by passengers taking a roundabout route from Vernon avenue across the bridge. It was shown also that the transfers would add materially to the comfort of the traveling public and would considerably reduce the duration of ride. Subsequently a memorandum was submitted by counsel for the company, repeating its objections.

The matter was given consideration for some time by the Commission. On March 10, 1917, a communication was received from President Wood, stating that the company had decided to issue transfers to and from the Vernon avenue cars at the bridge and asking that the case be dismissed. On March 21, 1917, the Commission approved an opinion by Commissioner Whitney, and adopted an order discontinuing the proceeding. Commissioner Whitney pointed out that, while certain legal questions had been raised by the company as to whether a statutory obligation rested upon it to grant transfers, it was nevertheless unnecessary for the Commission to pass upon this point of the case in view of the company's decision to give transfers.

Case No. 2169-Interborough Rapid Transit Company — Platform Gates and Platforms on Cars of Elevated Lines. Following the receipt of reports from its engineers and of several complaints, the Commission on December 19, 1916, directed that an investigation be instituted to determine whether an order should be made calling upon the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to provide a different type of platform gate on its elevated cars, to widen the platforms on said cars and to make such other changes in connection therewith, as might be necessary to promote the security or convenience of the public. Under this order hearings were held on December 28, 1916, and January 8, 1917. Engineers and transit inspectors of the Commission testified as to the conditions existing in the operation of the elevated lines in Manhattan and The Bronx, especially in the rush hours, morning and evening, when the trains run on close headway. The general experience of the several witnesses was, according to their testimony, that the cars in the rush hours were greatly overloaded, with many passengers standing on the platforms, making it difficult for the guards to open the gates. This fre quently was the cause of serious delays resulting not only in interference with the train movements, but also causing the station platforms to be unduly crowded. In some instances at the heaviest moments of rush-hour travel, the testimony showed, platform guards employed by the company found it necessary to use force in pushing passengers away from the gates in order that the trains might be started. Testimony also showed that elsewhere on other roads similarly operated, collapsible side gates or sliding doors had been installed, with a consequent gain in comfort to the traveling public and also in safety of operation. An official of the Interborough Company, called as a witness, asserted that the objectionable features were noticeable upon practically only one line of the company and that condition, he believed, would be relieved when the new subways were placed in operation. The company's principal witness also stated that the company had been experimenting with sliding gates or doors and was willing to prepare plans for such gates, to be submitted to the Commission for approval and if approved to install them upon

one or two experimental trains. At the second hearing on January 8, it was testified by an operating official that the type of gate it was proposed experimentally to install would cost about $75.00 per car. This gate it was stated would be of a folding type. The hearings were closed, and the Commission on January 17 adopted an order directing the Interborough Rapid Transit Company to equip for operation on its Third Avenue Elevated line two trains of seven cars each with a type of sliding gate, such trains to be placed in regular operation in the express

service.

The Commission later was notified that the company had two trains so equipped and that such trains would be placed in operation on February 16. On March 19 the Commission was informed by Frank Hedley, Vice-President and General Manager of the Interborough Company, that the tests made of the folding gate had not given the results hoped for, although reducing slightly the average of station waits by trains. The company suggested that it be permitted to equip certain cars experimentally with a sliding door or gate on the outside of the cars. To the installation of such apparatus the Commission's engineers pointed out several objections, observing that possibly the unfavorable results obtained from the operation of the folding type of gate were due to mechanical difficulties rather than intrinsic lack of merit in the gates themselves. The company, however, was permitted to continue the experiments with different types of gates, each step in these experiments being carefully checked by the Commission's engineers.

Case No. 2203-New York and Long Island Traction Company-Service on Brooklyn-Mineola Division within the City of New York. The company named in this proceeding operates a trolley line through the suburban section of Queens, within the City of New York, much of its trackage being through sparsely settled territory. Some years ago the Commission, taking up the matter of service on its lines, issued orders specifying the service to be provided. These orders were issued at a time when the road was not equipped with a signal system and when it was practically impossible to operate less than a fifteen-minute interval between cars with any degree of regularity.