and the rates therein have not been justified. We need no order regarding the schedules, inasmuch as by their own limitation they expired November 30, 1939, but we will enter an order discontinuing the proceeding.

MAHAFFIE, Commissioner, concurring:

The result of the report and order is the discontinuance of the proceeding. In that I concur. The suspended schedules have expired. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary now to find whether, if they had not expired, they would be lawful. I would base the order discontinuing the investigation on the fact that the proceeding is moot.

235 I. C. C.

No. 28000 (SUB-No. 25)

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

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY

Submitted November 28, 1939. Decided January 5, 1940

Petition of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for approval of modification of interlocking, automatic block-signal, and automatic cab-signal systems at Gallitzin, Pa., involving consolidation of block and interlocking stations, granted.

Adelbert Schroeder for applicant.

B. C. Lewis, H. P. Wian, and N. B. Huling for employee organizations.

J. S. Hawley and S. N. Mills for Interstate Commerce Commission. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

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

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company has filed application pursuant to section 26 (b) of the Interstate Commerce Act for approval of modification of the interlocking, automatic block-signal, and automatic cab-signal systems at Gallitzin, Pa., and the consolidation of two interlocking stations at that point. The Pennsylvania asserts that the proposed changes would facilitate the handling of traffic, reduce the cost and increase the safety of train operation. The changes are opposed by representatives of two employee organizations on the ground that safety of operation would be decreased. Hearing has been held, and the case has been submitted without the filing of briefs.

Gallitzin is a station on the Pittsburgh division of the Pennsylvania, near the top of the mountain, about 12 miles west of Altoona, Pa. In this territory there is a four-track main line over which trains are operated by timetable, train orders, and an automatic block-signal system employing position-light signals and an automatic cab-signal system of the four-indication coded type. East of Gallitzin there are two single-track tunnels for westward tracks and one double

216338m-40-vol. 235-45

track tunnel for eastward tracks. The eastward and westward tracks diverge from each other at a point some distance east of the tunnels and converge at a point west of Gallitzin. Two block and interlocking stations, designated as UN and AR, are located about a quarter of a mile west of the tunnels. Movements over westward tracks are controlled from UN and those over eastward tracks from AR. The main-line tracks are several hundred feet apart and are connected by two loop tracks. There are several siding tracks connected with the main tracks at the interlockings. SF interlocking plant is located east of the tunnels and formerly was self-contained, but at present the switches and signals on the westward tracks are operated by remote control from UN and those on the eastward tracks from AR. UN and AR interlockings are of the electropneumatic type, having signals of the position-light type and switches of the electropneumatic type. Both approach and detector lockings are used.

The track grade descends in either direction from a point just west of the tunnels, and helper locomotives are used on practically all trains hauled through Gallitzin in either direction. There are about 150 train movements daily in either direction, and between 100 and 150 helper locomotives daily are routed in either direction over the loop tracks, used to return these locomotives to their respective terminals. Several months ago the tower at UN was accidentally destroyed, and temporary arrangements were made for controlling the switches and signals from an interlocking machine located in a boxcar near the site of the former tower. Under the proposed plan the interlocking machine now used at UN will be relocated in AR tower, and operation of all interlocking facilities at SF, UN, and AR will be controlled from AR tower. In connection with this change, one automatic signal on eastward track 2 at AR station will be removed, a two-indication dwarf signal will be added for reverse movements on track 2, and the eastward automatic signal on track 2 west of the tunnel will be changed from automatic to interlocking control. All of the dwarf signals at UN interlocking will be made semiautomatic, and two additional dwarf signals will be added for reverse movements on tracks 3 and 4. Westward automatic signals for tracks 3 and 4 at SF station, which is east of the tunnels, will be changed from automatic to interlocking control; an inoperative dwarf signal for track 2 east of the tunnel will be made an operative signal; and the cautionslow-speed aspects on two westward dwarf signals, located east of the tunnel, will be changed to slow-speed aspects. It is also proposed to remove a signal bridge, together with three automatic signals located thereon governing eastward movements, which is located about 1 mile west of AR, and to add bottom arms to an automatic signal and an

interlocking signal controlled from the next interlocking station west of Gallitzin, known as MO interlocking tower. Wayside automatic cab-signal circuits will be modified to conform to the interlocking and automatic block-signal changes.

The Pennsylvania asserts that consolidation of control of the functions of AR, UN, and SF stations in AR station will give the operating department a better chance to follow the operation more carefully and more fully and will greatly facilitate train movement. The entire operation at this point will be under the supervision and direction of one man, instead of being divided between two men, thereby simplifying contact with adjacent stations and resulting in improvement in operation and in increased protection and safety of operation. The estimated cost of the proposed changes is $13,655. The proposed changes will result in the elimination of three operators at UN station, but one leverman will be added to each of the three daily tricks at AR station, and there will be no change in the number of men employed. Under the proposed arrangement, a model board, which will be designed particularly for the consolidated lay-out and which will show track occupancy of trains moving through the interlockings, will be mounted in AR station. This will permit the men on duty readily to determine definitely the routes which are being used. The operator will handle such few train orders as are issued and determine the route to be used by any train, and the leverman by the operation of the interlocking machine will line up this route. The model board will show by colored lights the progressive movements of trains over any route.

Protestants' principal evidence consisted of the testimony of an operator employed by the Pennsylvania. Objections were made to the proposed changes on the ground that additional duties would be imposed upon the operator which might cause him to overlook some matter in connection with the routing of trains, resulting in an accident. The basis for this contention seems to be the belief that the operator would be overworked and that a man-failure might thus result. This testimony indicated a lack of information as to the manner in which the operations would be conducted under the proposed plan. Testimony was given to show that operators are required by the operating rules to watch passing trains to detect any dragging parts or dangerous conditions on the trains. This is true with respect to all railroad employees whose duties require them to be in the vicinity of tracks where trains pass. The evidence fails to show that the proposed changes would in any manner reduce the factor of safety now provided, and the condition of equipment of passing trains is only incidental to the principal duties of block operators.

The record shows that the changes proposed are in accordance with modern signal practice and would conform to the rules, standards, and instructions prescribed by the Commission for the installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of systems, devices, and appliances intended to promote the safety of railroad operation in accordance with section 26 of the act as amended.

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

235 I. C. C.