The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-02-21

brought to date, he could operate the
plant for $4,000, or about 81, 900 more
per annum for five hundred lights than
the SzS cost now. IF cannot demon
Slrate tnls L VIII be willing to work for
no salary at ALL" said he.
Strange as it may appear, a new mod
ern plant for five hundred lights will
require less number of men to OPP
crate II than the present plant with 1928.
witness the Edison company in trim
mers alone, using two boys to trim
twice the lights the city has been trim
ming with four or 1--WE men. with the
new lamps there will be big saving
IN carbons, those necessary for five
hundred modern lamps costing at least
90 per cent less than those needed for
Szs unoer the old style. To produce the
current for five hundred lamps, and all
night instead On the moonlight sched-
ule, would Of course, require more fuel,
out large amount of this added fuel
would be saved by reason of new mod
ern boilers equipped with purifiers.
Now take the depreciation figured by
Mr.. Myers in these letters and the city
has invested at present in the electric
light plant $27, 500. Figures accepted by
Mr.. Myers. Adding to this $4,000 for
new equipment, puts the investment at
is s3,675. divided by five hundred, gives
$40 as the interest charge per lamp per
year. Add this same amount, per
cent, $7.75, for depreciation. Then add
$50 per lamp per year for operating ex-
penses- This would make the cost per
lamp per year to the city 1880
The operating expenses per lamp
above are arrived at by dividing $4,000
per year by five hundred lamps, giving
$50 per lamp per year. The estimate of
$50 per lamp for operating expenses
may be disputed by the Edison COM
pany, but 1t is made on the basis on
which the superintendent stakes his
salary.
However, let us look at 1t another
way. For the last nine years, says Mr..
Myers table, the cost per lamp per
year, without interest and depreciation,
has been $41.87. This, Notwithstanding
ment, the overloaded plant and
the mixing of politics with electricity.
It cannot be disputed that modern
lamps alone would have saved the city
on this average cost (the wages Of four
trimmers at $3.50 a year. which is 81
1900 50 per lamp per year, on the 30S
lamps which Mr.. Myers says were in
operation during the last nine years.
Thus. If it did cost the city, as Mt MY
ers says, $42 per lamp per year, with
the modern lamp the city could have
cut this expense from $42 to $33 per
lamp. Thus, If under the old opera
ton during the past nine years, the
city had put in modern lamps which
would have paid for themselves in two
years, and which would have been good
for ten years more, they could have re-
duced this figure to 1913, which is quite
close to the above estimate of $50 with
800 lamps and up to date equipment,
without taking into account host or
other economies. present day machinery
effects.
Mr.. Myers has been very busy
man since he went after this $55 con-
tract which would bring his company
each year $27,5O0.00, which amount in
two years would more than pay for
all the money the city needs to put
it-just as today we are proud OF Mr..
Myers energy and enterprise and
money in giving Topeka superb
street railway service and splendid
electric light, heat and power equip
ment, which furnishes the business
houses. factories and residences WIN
the best of light and power at rates
which are lower than generally
charged. Topeka is favored In these
respects and I can congratulate To-
peka and Mr.. Myers when he says In
one of these letters: "Our OF 40 cleo
trically lighted cities. all comparative
to Topeka, Kan, there are but two
where the rates are as low for resi-
dence lighting as those charged by US,
and in both of these cases the charges
for commercial service are SO to 20
per. cent higher than our charges"
Good.
In another letter Mr.. Myers. giving
cities says Of street lighting: "The
cost would easily exceed $4,000, with
which our, proposition of SIS certain
Iy compares most favorably. An
other compliment to Topeka's plant
which Mr.. Myers says has averaged
us s75-and which is now costing US
s52.s3. Mr.. Myers adds that our
Edison rates are lower than those of
most any other company in the coun-
try"
He says (page 1, letter January
80, 1soS): OF these 40 electric light
ing plants-only two municipal
others corporations is interesting
to note Gin the statement attached)
there is but one city (Harrisburg,
pa. cheap coal) where the price for
street lighting is less than that we
offer (s55)."s How a municipal plant
does worry a corporation down on the
price and what a compliment to our
little old municipal plant which today
does the work for $52.S3. Shake, Mr..
Mayor and Messrs. Councilmen-and
Mr.. Goodrich! -
But I started out to say Mr.. Myers
has been a busy man. He has been
counting poles: for he says. in another
letter: at would also call your atten-
ton to the fact that the city is using
513 poles belonging to private corpor-
atfons and, If this privilege be with
drawn there. would be a further i'm
mediately necessary expenditure" etc.
This was interesting, a little sensation
al and important IL true, and appar-
emily true. The city electric light plant
has 1.sss poles myers count and be-
lieved to be correct).. My attention
being called to these things they were
looked up. To begin with. the four
observed. This is right under the
noses Of the mayor and aldermen and
they can look out of the council cham
Der windows and see the deplorabie
condition. The poles were identified