ates, no distinction is made between shippers, based upon the quantity of shipments, except that made between the shipment of carload quantities and those less than a carload, the unit of freight shipment being a carload. The period of time to which statements in this communication are applicable, where not specially mentioned, is the period ending September 30, 1899, that being the period adopted in one of the questions submitted, and one which would seem to answer the purposes of the inquiry. An opportunity was given to any person having within his knowledge facts or information relating to differences in freight rates to present them at a public hearing. Although notice of this hearing was widely given by publication in the principal cities along the line of the Boston & Albany Railroad, no one appeared at the appointed time. JAMES F. JACKSON, HERSEY B. GOODWIN, Commissioners. MARCH 14, 1900. [B.] SPECIAL REPORTS ON STREET RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. ELECTRIC CAR COLLISION OF THE WEBSTER & DUDLEY STREET RAILWAY IN THE TOWN OF WEBSTER. On the morning of July 4, 1900, an open fifteen-bench car, equipped with double trucks and air brakes, and carrying about 102 passengers, owned and operated by the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Company, collided with an open ten-bench car, equipped with single truck and hand brakes, and containing 4 passengers, owned and operated by the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company. These cars were at the time running in opposite directions upon the single line of railway track of the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company in the town of Webster. As a result of the collision, 2 persons were killed and about 35 persons were injured. The inquiry made by the Board into the circumstances of this accident included two public hearings. Car No. 14 of the Worcester & Webster Street Railway Company left Webster for Worcester at 7.50 A.M., running on regular time, and collided with car No. 13 of the Webster & Dudley Street Railway Company, which had left East Webster at 7.57 A.M. The place of the collision was a curve in the railway at the foot of a moderate grade in each direction. A row of trees located on the west side of the street prevents motormen from seeing cars approaching in the opposite direction until they are within 300 or 400 feet of each other. It is probable that in this instance the motormen did not notice the approaching car until the distance between the two cars was between 200 and 300 feet. The way in which the cars were affected by the Special report to the Legislature relative to apportionment on street railway companies of part of cost of abolition of grade crossings may be found on page 86. blows received indicates a high rate of speed, especially on the part of the Worcester & Webster car, which, in striking, forced the Webster & Dudley car backward nearly 200 feet. A duly executed contract for the joint use of the single track in Webster by both of these companies, which had been in force between the companies, had expired in the preceding April, and the joint use of the track upon the day of the accident was under simply an oral understanding made, or tacitly assented to, between certain officials of the two companies. As, therefore, there was then in force no contract for this joint use, approved, as required by law, by this Board, the car of the Worcester & Webster Company was on the track of the Webster & Dudley Company without legal right. There had been no mutual exchange of time tables between the companies, and there were no joint rules or regulations for operating cars. A printed time table of the Webster & Dudley Company had indirectly come into the possession of the officials of the Worcester & Webster Company, which showed a car service for week days and for Sundays, but made no mention of holidays. The week-day service did not include the running of the car which was in collision, that being an extra car, run upon holidays upon the time given for Sunday service. No notice was given to the Worcester & Webster Company of the running of this car. The Worcester & Webster Company apparently made no inquiry as to the running of cars upon this holiday, although the running of extra cars upon that day would ordinarily be expected, and although on the previous holiday, May 30, after the time table in question had been issued, extra cars not named upon that time table had been operated by the Webster & Dudley Company. The investigation of this accident shows that the loss of life and the bodily injury to so many persons were due primarily to inexcusable carelessness on the part of those charged with the management of these railways. The joint use by two independent companies of a line of single railway track of such length as to necessitate the running of cars over it in opposite directions is, under the most favorable conditions, attended by such risk as to call for the exercise of more than ordinary care and the use of great precaution. To run a heavy modern car, loaded with passengers, at a high rate of speed upon a down grade is a questionable method of operation. To run such a car at even twelve miles an hour upon this holiday over a single track in joint use by two companies, with no more effort than was here made to ascertain the running time of the cars of both companies, was little short of reckless management. Of similar character was the running of the extra car not named upon the outstanding time table without the giving of definite notice to the other company of the intention to run such a car. That the car of the Worcester & Webster Company was upon the track of the Webster & Dudley Company without legal right, with the knowledge of the officials of both companies, adds to their responsibility in the premises. The speed at which the Worcester & Webster car was at the time being run has undoubtedly an important bearing in determining the contributing causes of the collision. We do not deem it necessary to decide what this speed actually was, or whether or not, if above twelve miles an hour, it was authorized by the company, for the reason that, irrespective of this, the accident presents a case where those in charge of these street railways have neglected to use the ordinary care and to exercise the ordinary precaution which everybody has a right to expect will always be used where the safety of the travelling public is involved. JAMES F. JACKSON, HERSEY B. GOODWIN, Commissioners. SEPTEMBER 21, 1900. [C.] ORDERS RELATING TO RAILROADS. STATIONS. PETITION OF BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD FOR APPROVAL OF RELOCATION OF BLEACHERY STATION IN LOWELL. In the matter of the petition of the Boston & Maine Railroad for the approval by the Board of a relocation of a passenger station in the city of Lowell, It appearing, after public notice and hearing, that the city council of the city of Lowell has duly approved of the removal of the station of the Boston & Maine Railroad known as the Bleachery station from its present site to the south side of Gorham Street, west of the main line tracks of the railroad, in said city, and that such change is consistent with the public interests, it is Ordered, That the approval of the Board be hereby given to the proposed relocation, as above described and as shown upon a plan on file in this office. JULY 3, 1900. Attest: WM. J. MCCULLOUGH, Assistant Clerk. PETITION OF NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY FOR APPROVAL OF RELOCATION OF STATION IN GREAT BARRINGTON. In the matter of the petition of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company for the approval by the Board of the relocation of a passenger station in the town of Great Barrington, after investigation, it is Ordered, That the approval of the Board be hereby given to the relocation of the passenger station of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company in the town of Great Barrington, as shown upon a plan marked "Site plan, proposed passenger station," dated August 2, 1900, upon file in this office with the petition. WM. A. CRAFTS, Attest: OCTOBER 31, 1900. Clerk. |