INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION DOCKET NO. 3240 LUMBER FROM POINTS IN FLORIDA TO PORT TAMPA, FLA. Submitted April 12, 1929. Decided September 16, 1929 Proposed increased rates on lumber, in carloads, from certain points in Florida to Port Tampa, Fla., for export or interstate coastwise movement, found justified. Order of suspension vacated and proceeding discontinued. Frank W. Gwathmey for respondents. T. M. Shackleford, jr., and F. W. Brown for protestants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS AITCHISON, EASTMAN, AND TAYLOR BY DIVISION 3: By schedules filed to become effective February 14, 1929, respondents, Seaboard Air Line and its subsidiaries, the Florida Central & Gulf, the Jacksonville, Gainesville & Gulf, and the Tavares & Gulf, hereinafter called the Seaboard, proposed to cancel the joint rates on lumber, in carloads, to Port Tampa, Fla., when for export or interstate coast wise movement, from certain points in Florida local to their lines, and to withdraw their participation in interstate rates on lumber, in carloads, from certain Florida common points to Port Tampa. Upon protest of shippers at Port Tampa and other parties interested in that port, the proposed schedules were suspended until September 14, 1929, and further postponed by respondents to October 14, 1929. Unless otherwise shown, rates will be stated in amounts. per 24,000 pounds. Tampa is located on both the Seaboard and the Atlantic Coast Line, hereinafter called the Coast Line. Port Tampa is 9 miles south of Tampa, and is served by the Coast Line only. Therefore, movements to Port Tampa in which the Seaboard participates are joint line. Port Tampa is a point on deep water at which are located certain terminals of the Coast Line. It is in the same commercial community as Tampa and is an accessory of that port. For the 11 months ending January 31, 1929, 50,493,200 and 13,003,839 feet of lumber were exported from Tampa and Port Tampa, respectively. The present rates to Tampa are distance rates and are the equivalents of single-line intrastate rates prescribed in 1914 by the Railroad Commission of Florida. Port Tampa is accorded the same rates as Tampa. These rates are published in amounts per carload of 24,000 pounds, excess in proportion. The proposed rates are the present rates to Tampa, plus $7.20 per car, regardless of weight, from Tampa to Port Tampa. The latter factor is generally applicable from Tampa to Port Tampa on shipments which originate on lines other than the Coast Line and is analogous to a switching charge. The average carload of lumber, according to this record, weighs about 52.000 pounds. The factor of $7.20 per car applied to that weight is equivalent to 1.38 cents per 100 pounds. The following rates are representative of the present and proposed rates, based on the minimum of 24,000 pounds: The proposed rates are somewhat higher than those under a scale, hereinafter called the Georgia scale, applicable over the Seaboard on interstate shipments of lumber from points in Georgia through Savannah, Ga. But they are lower than the rates under a scale, hereinafter called the Carolina scale, applicable over that line on like traffic from points in North Carolina through Wilmington, N. C. They are also lower than the present equivalents of rates on lumber prescribed by us in Meridian Rate Case, 66 I. C. C. 179, hereinafter called the Meridian scale, for single-line hauls between certain points in Alabama and Mississippi. Rates under the three scales mentioned and the proposed rates, are for distances shown, as follows: We have prescribed rates between other points in southern territory which are about in line with or higher than the rates under the Meridian scale for similar distances. In Card Lumber Co. v. N., C. & St. L. Ry., 140 I. C. C. 421, we prescribed a rate equivalent of $27.60 per 24,000 pounds on lumber from New Market, Ala., to Chattanooga, Tenn., 101 miles. In Northeast Mississippi Traffic Bureau v. M. & O. R. R. Co., 104 I. C. C. 15, we prescribed a rate equivalent to $33.60 per 24,000 pounds from Tupelo, Miss., to points in Tennessee, for 137 and 138 miles. The present equivalent of the rate under the Meridian scale for these distances is $31.20. Lumber also moves in considerable volume through the port of Jacksonville, Fla. Both the Seaboard and the Coast Line serve that point. The proposed joint-line rates to Port Tampa from certain points on the Seaboard would be slightly higher than rates for single-line hauls which are longer from the same origins to Jacksonville. For example, the proposed joint-line rate from Dallas, Fla., to Port Tampa, if applied to the average weight of 52,000 pounds, would be about 0.5 cent per 100 pounds higher than the single-line rate from the same origin to Jacksonville, although the distance to Port Tampa is about 20 miles less than that to Jacksonville. The rate from Dallas to Jacksonville is also applicable to Fernandina, Fla., a minor port about 36 miles northeast of Jacksonville and local to the Seaboard. From certain common points the Coast Line concurs in rates to Fernandina which are the same as the rates to Jacksonville, although the haul is joint line. In numerous instances respondents maintain single-line rates for joint-line hauls to minor ports near Jacksonville. For example, from numerous local points on the Seaboard, single-line rates are applicable to East Port, Fla., a port about 12 miles from Jacksonville and local to the Coast Line. At present no lumber for export moves through any of these minor ports, unless there be such movement through East Port. There is a terminal at that point which is owned by a lumber company, but the record does not show any export movement therefrom. To what extent, if any, lumber moves through these minor ports in interstate coastwise traffic is likewise not disclosed. The proposed rates do not reflect more than maximum reasonableness, and, upon consideration of the present record, we are of the opinion that it has not been shown that undue prejudice will result therefrom. We find that the proposed schedules have been justified. An order will be entered vacating our order of suspension and discontinuing this proceeding. 157 I. C. C. No. 13413 IN THE MATTER OF AUTOMATIC TRAIN-CONTROL DEVICES No. 13413 (SUB-No. 29-2) IN THE MATTER OF AUTOMATIC TRAIN-STOP DEVICE, ALTERNATING CURRENT, INTERMITTENT INDUCTION TYPE, OF GENERAL RAILWAY SIGNAL COMPANY ON NORTHERN DIVISION OF CHICAGO, INDIANAPOLIS & LOUISVILLE RAILWAY Inspection completed March 30, 1929. Decided September 16, 1929 1. After inspection and test, installations found to be in conformity with plans furnished by the carrier and installations are approved except as noted. 2 Certain features in connection with the requirements and specifications are brought to the carrier's attention for further consideration and appropriate action. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 6, COMMISSIONERS EASTMAN, MCMANAMY, AND TAYLOR BY DIVISION 6: This report is made after inspection and test of the automatic train-stop device installed on the Northern division of the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville by the carrier pursuant to our orders of June 13, 1922, and January 14, 1924, as modified July 18, 1924, Automatic Train-Control Devices, 91 I. C. C. 426. In those orders we required, among others, the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville to install an automatic train-stop or train-control device on designated portions of its line in accordance with specifications and requirements therein prescribed. The device used in the installations under consideration is an automatic train stop, alternating-current intermittent-induction type, manufactured by the General Railway Signal Company. Under our order of June 13, 1922, the Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville completed and placed in service between South Hammond and Monon, Ind., an installation of an automatic train-stop device, intermittent magnetic induction type, as described in our report No. 13413 (Sub-No. 29). Subsequently, upon petition, permission was granted to the carrier to change the type of train-stop device installed under our order of June 13, 1922. COST OF INSTALLATION The actual total cost of each of the completed installations now in service, covering roadway and locomotive equipment as hereinafter described, is as follows: Roadway equipment: Cost of roadway equipment of train-control installation less or cost of change in existing signal system, less salvage $26, 560.22 Cost of power lines and power apparatus, if any, less salvage (first order)‒‒‒‒ Cost of signal system installed in connection with train control (first order). Cost of change in existing signal system made necessary by train control, less salvage (initial installation, first order) 85, 688. 13 - Cost of roadway installation (initial installation, first Cost, less salvage, of change from Sprague to Miller device, Total cost, existing installation, first order‒‒‒‒‒ Cost of roadway equipment of train-control installation less power lines and power apparatus, if any, less cost of signals or cost of change in existing signal system; less salvage (second order)‒‒‒‒‒ 112, 248. 35 2, 435. 32 114, 683.73 31, 109.95 Total cost of power lines and power apparatus, if any, less salvage (second order)----. Total cost of signal system installed in connection with train control, less salvage (second order)‒‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ Total cost of change in existing signal system made necessary by train control, less salvage (second order) __. Total cost of roadway installation (second order)__. Total cost of roadway installation, both orders---- Locomotive equipment: Cost of locomotive equipment (32 locomotives) installed (initial installation first order) ____ Cost, less salvage, of change from Sprague device to Miller device__ Total cost of locomotive equipment (first order) ----Total cost of locomotive equipment (18 locomotives) installed (second order)__. Total cost of locomotive equipment, both orders__ Total cost of completed installation, both orders---- DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY EQUIPMENT 78. 263. 30 109, 373.25 224, 056. 98 38, 844. 42 19,670.36 58,514.78 28,957. 10 87.471.88 311, 528.88 The roadway installation was placed in service on November 23. 1927. It extends from automatic signal 20.9, located at Fayette |