and to intermediate points. Departures would occur at origins and destinations and on both direct and indirect routes. In view of our conclusions herein, these departures need not be illustrated.

The purpose of establishing the proposed rates is to enable applicants to compete with the Eastern Steamship Lines from Richmond and from Petersburg in connection with the Buxton Lines, Incorporated, and the Merchants and Miners Transportation Company in connection with the Buxton Lines from both points. These carriers maintain a rate of 66 cents on cigarettes and smoking tobacco, in carloads, minimum 36,000 pounds, from and to the considered points. The movement of cigarettes and smoking tobacco in carload quantities by water from Petersburg and Richmond to Boston in 1938 was 46,000 pounds. There was no movement in carload quantities by water during the first 6 months of 1939. The movement in less-thancarload quantities by water was 5,130,806 pounds in 1938 and 3,935,036 pounds during the first 6 months of 1939. There was no movement in carloads by rail during these periods. The movement in less than carloads by rail was 5,188,691 pounds in 1938 and 751,885 pounds during the first 6 months of 1939. The Eastern Steamship Lines and the Merchants and Miners Transportation Company are opposed to the relief sought on the ground that there is no substantial movement of cigarettes and smoking tobacco, in carloads, from and to the considered points and no necessity for changing the present carload rates. Applicants' witness testified that the shippers and receivers of these commodities have advised the carriers that this traffic will continue to move by water and that the rail carriers will be denied a fair share of the traffic unless the proposed competitive rates are made available from and to the considered points. There is no evidence, however, that establishment of the proposed rate would result in any movement of this traffic in carloads from and to the considered points.

We are not convinced upon this record that the competition of the steamship lines hereinbefore described is sufficient to justify relief in the proposed reduced carload rates. We find that the relief prayed has not been justified.

An order denying the relief will be entered.

235 L. C. C.

No. 28000 (SUB-No. 22)

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF SYSTEMS OR DEVICES UNDER PARAGRAPH (b), SECTION 26 OF THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT AS AMENDED

CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

Submitted October 27, 1939. Decided November 25, 1939

Petition of the trustees of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company for approval of installation of centralized traffic-control system, in lieu of manual block system, between Hulbert, Ark., and Briark, Ark., granted.

Harry E. Boe for petitioner.

W. H. Dunman and M. T. Fullington for protestant.

S. N. Mills for Interstate Commerce Commission.

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MAHAFFIE, ALLDREDGE, AND PATTERSON BY DIVISION 3:

The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company (Frank O. Lowden, James E. Gorman, and Joseph B. Fleming, trustees), hereinafter called the Rock Island, has filed application pursuant to section 26 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act for approval of the installation of a centralized traffic-control system between Hulbert, Ark., and Briark, Ark., which will eliminate the present manually operated signals and telephone block system for the operation of trains between those points. The Rock Island urges that the proposed changes would facilitate the handling of traffic and reduce the cost and increase the safety of operation. The services of two telegraph operators, now stationed at Hulbert, would be discontinued. The changes are opposed by representatives of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers on the ground that safety of operation would be decreased. Hearing has been held, and briefs have been submitted by the parties. The proposed modification has met with no objection from the Arkansas Corporation Commission.

Briark is at the eastern end of the Arkansas division of the Rock Island and is located near the west bank of the Mississippi River, opposite Memphis, Tenn. The railroad between Briark and Memphis

is operated by the Arkansas & Memphis Railway Bridge and Terminal Company. Hulbert is located 5.3 miles west of Briark, and the single-track line of railroad between those points is owned by the Rock Island. The St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company has trackage rights over this portion of the Rock Island line, and its trains are operated in accordance with Rock Island operating rules. Wimef, Ark., located 1,350 feet east of Hulbert, is a junction point for tracks of the Missouri Pacific Railroad and the Rock Island tracks. Missouri Pacific trains are operated in accordance with Rock Island operating rules over the Rock Island tracks from Wimef to Briark and thence across the bridge into Memphis.

Under the existing manual-block system, operators are stationed at Hulbert and Briark. Communication between them, with respect to the movement of trains in the zone involved, is effected by telephone. Train-order and manual-block signals are provided at Hulbert and Briark. Under the present practice an absolute block for passenger trains is maintained. Freight trains are permitted to follow each other through the block at 10-minute intervals. An east-bound Missouri Pacific train is not permitted to use the Rock Island tracks until a member of the crew has telephoned the operator at Hulbert from Wimef and obtained the block clearance. When this is received a hand-operated switch at the junction is thrown, and the train proceeds into the block. There are some switching movements through the zone involved, and during the month of August 1939 an average daily total of approximately 27 train or switching movements through the territory was made. A maximum speed of 70 miles per hour for passenger trains through the zone involved is permitted under the operating rules. Freight and switching movements are made under yard-limit rules.

Under the proposed plan a centralized traffic-control machine will be installed and handled by operators at Briark. The use of written train orders will be eliminated, and all trains will be operated by signal indication. All junction switches will continue to be handoperated. Three semiautomatic nonstick color-light home signals governing eastward movements will be installed at Hulbert. One of these signals will control main-line movements, another movements from Hulbert yard, and the third movements from the Missouri Pacific connection at Wimef. Each signal will display three aspects on the top unit, while the bottom unit will display a red aspect. The two signals governing movements from the yard and the Missouri Pacific track will be equipped with indicators which will display the letter "S" when a train is authorized to enter upon the main track. Three-indication color-light approach signals for . eastward movements will be provided, and a two-indication west

ward home signal will be installed at Hulbert yard. Two intermediate signals, the westward one displaying three indications and the eastward one two indications, will likewise be installed. At Briark a two-unit color-light signal will be installed to govern westward movements into centralized traffic-control territory. The top unit of this signal will display three aspects. Two aspects will be displayed by the bottom unit which will be used as a "call-on" signal. The approach of an east-bound Missouri Pacific train at Wimef will be indicated on the centralized traffic-control panel at Briark. If traffic conditions are such as to permit the train to move from Wimef to Briark, the operator will move a lever on the panel, thus lighting the letter "S" on the signal at the junction. This signal indication authorizes the opening of the hand-thrown switch leading to the Rock Island tracks. Further protection is automatically provided as this signal will not show a proceed or approach aspect unless the track upon which the train is to proceed can be used in safety. The estimated cost of the project is $25,000, and the expenditure of this amount has been authorized.

The system which it is proposed to install is designated as centralized traffic control; it provides for automatic block-signal protection under the supervision of operators. The employee organization opposing the change points out that the present method of operation has been in effect for a number of years, and that there have been no accidents attributable to it. It urges that the method of train operation by clearance card issued by operators at each end of the trackage involved after consultation by telephone, one with the other, is safe and certain. It also contends that the operation over the proposed installation will be more expensive than the method now used, and that the proposed plan will neither expedite traffic nor increase safety. The record does not support those contentions. There are numerous installations of centralized traffic control in use throughout the United States. Speaking of such a system in Delaware & H. R. Corp. Modification of Systems, 234 I. C. C. 232, division 3 said:

It is shown that it has been approved by the signal section of the Association of American Railroads and that installations of this system have been in service in the United States since 1927. At the present time there are approximately 1,568 miles of road and 2,444 miles of track operated by this method.

The Rock Island has installed centralized traffic-control systems at several points on its line which are described of record. Some of these are used at junctions and ends of double track in territory having heavy traffic density and have facilitated train operation with no decrease in safety. Similar systems are in service at a

number of points on the Missouri Pacific, and the uncontradicted testimony shows that safety has been increased and operating conditions improved by their use.

We find that under the particular circumstances here shown, giving consideration to the traffic involved, the physical characteristics of the track, and the type of equipment to be used, the changes as set forth in the application will not decrease safety but may reasonably be said to promote safety. We further find that the petition should be granted. An appropriate order will be entered.

235 I. C. C.