Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-18
The Storage Battery.
To the Editor Of The Evening Star:

To the Editor Of The Evening Star:
Considerable interest is taken by the
washington public in the bill now pending
before Congress with regard to the adoption
or S! stems of street railway traction for
use In the city of Washington This in
terest has been increased by the fact that
the Commissioners Of the District are not
OF one mind upon the subject Col. Trues-
DELL. one of their number, has submitted
a minority report, the substance of which
was published in your paper on the Sth in
slant In this report he took particular
PAINS to allege that the storage battery
system had been proved to be a complete
FAILURE by long and costly experiment"
upon road then under his charge.
we are reluctant to enter into a news
paper discussion Of the subject at this
time. Tor the reason that the efficiency of
the storage battery system to which Col
Iruesdell refers, is to be decided by the
courts In the near future. We feel, how
ever, That the public might be misled we're
we to remain silent under the Commits
sioners attack. and we therefore beg to
submit the following statement:
IN January OF 1891 the lexington and
soldiers Home Railway Company of which
Col Truesdell was then president entered
into contract with the Accumulator Conn
pany, by the terms of which the latter
agreed to equip six of the railway com
pany's cars with storage batteries, accu-
mulators and other electric appliancas
necessary for their operation, and to super
wise their management for a limited period
During this period the privilege of rejecting
the storage battery equipment was reserved
by the railway, but IL agreed that in ca Sc
II was rejected the railway should give
written notice to the Accumulation Com
pany setting forth in what respect it con-
siuereu that the equipment did not fulfill
the contract requirements.
The six cars with the electrical eouip-
ment were installed in good working order
upon the premises of the railway COM
autumn. of. 1901. Throughout the trial
period they did most admirable service
maintaining as high rate of speed as was
consistent with safety. and running regu-
larry on schedule time. with the exception
Of instances when delays were occasioned
by distractions upon the track and other
external causes. The success Of the system
exceeded the highest expectation of both
parties. and neither during the trial period
nor afterwards did the railway company
give notice that the equipment was not sat
isfactory.
In point Of efficiency the storage cars
We're fully equal to the trolley cars, oper-
ated upon another branch of the Ecking-
ten and Soldiers Home railway For a
year or more they were operated by the
Accumulation Company and during this time
no weakness was developed In any part of
the system. Some little trouble was ex-
pcrienced shortly after the cars were in
stalled, but this was due to the inferior
character of the running gear, which was
furnished by the railway company. As a
matter of course. the responsibility for
this did not rest with the Accumulation
Company.
In September of 1892. finding that the
railway would not perform its part of the
contract, the Accumulation Company, after
doing everything in its power to insure
the continued success of its equipment, and
after giving due notice to the railway, with
rON frnv fh.an Hon, of
after their deterioration was marked and
rapid. owing to the utter incompetence of
persons placed in charge of the storage
plant by the railway.
We are at loss to understand in what
respect Commissioner Truesdell found the
storage battery system a failure, since 1t
was a mechanical success as long II was
properly managed. In the matter of eX-
pense he had as little cause to complain,
for the actual cost of operation was less per
car mile than that of the trolley system
upon another branch Of the railway. To be
sure. his road had agreed to pay the Ac-
cumulator Company for the operation of
the cars at a higher rate. But even on this
small and relatively experimental road the
actual cost of operation compared favora
bly, with that Of larger roads operated by
horses.
Commissioner Truesdell seems to attach
importance to the weight Of storage bat
terry cars yet it is fact that the weight
of the storage cars equipped by the Ac-
lexington road was less than that Of mod
ern trolley cars, and Furthermore the power
required to propel them was less than
one7half of that required for the same
number of trolley cars.
We feel entitled to criticise the statement
that the storage battery system was proved
to be failure by long and costly ex-
pertinent" The lexington road paid the
Accumulation Company a little over $12.OOO
for the operation of the six cars. This
was not the full amount which it agreed
to pay for that service, but 1t refused to
pay more. 1t likewise refused to pay one
cent of the agreed purchase price of the
plant So much for the cost Of the expert
ment up to the present time.
After it's withdrawal from the operate
of the cars the Accumulation Company COM
menced an action against the railway COM
pany for the sum due it under the con-
tract. After the trial the efficiency of the
storage battery system will be better
known for it Is certain to receive intelli-
gent consideration.
THE ACCUMULATOR COMPANY.