New-York tribune., 1921-05-15
New England
Roads ate
I'm Balance


---------------------------
any large proportion of merchandise
bound out Of New England. There are
some commodities which permit of as
sembly at Boston, Providence or
Worcester or other points for through
movement to the Harlem River gate
way or the Albany gateway, but in
general the collection of the freight
is quite closely analogous to the as
classification yard Furthermore, the
train generally has to be broken up
at the gateway, where it leaves New
England. The earnings of train per
mile are likely to be less and the cost
of operation considerably more on the
New York, New Haven & Hartford
than on the New York Central.
The New England roads base their
demand for larger division Of
freight rates on the fact that ratio
of the cost of handling freight to the
on the New England roads, than on
the Trunk Lines. They claim that
they have been actually losing money
on through business business and hav-
ing to make UP the loss on revenue
from intra-New England business
On local business the New2 Haven
receives cents for carrying a ton
one mile, on through business the
New > Nst., Haven wen receives NJ ~ cents. The he
through business is about 2 cents
ton mile. 1t takes 1.6 naan hours on
the New Haven to perform the same
part of the necessary work pertaining
to moving freight 100 miles that l
man hour performs on the Trunk
Lines. Justice demands therefore that
the New England roads, they argue,
beeiven credit for this fact when
division of the through freight rate
is fixed.
The New England roads at first
asked that they should not only be
given larger proportion of the
through rates but that the award
should be made retroactive. If this
request had been granted they would
have received about $25,000,000 for
freight business previously carried at
the old divisions OF the rate. This
retroactive feature of the New Eng
land roads claim has been held in
allegiance.
in the mean time another proposal
was made before the Interstate Com
merce Commission which meets SOME
of the most serious objections to the
change in the division of through rates.
F. j. Lisman, of the banking firm OF
f. j. Lisman & Co., proposed that the
trunk line railroads doing business
with the New England railroads keep
an account separately of their New
England freight business. At the end
of specified period, according to the
proposal, they should render an ac-
count to the New England roads and
rebate to them a certain percentage
(not more than 12h per cent? Of the
revenue from this business. The
amount to be rebated would be deter
mined by the difference between what
the trunk lines earned during that
period on their valuation and what the
New England roads earned on their
valuation. Thus if the trunk lines net
earnings were per cent on their
valuation and the New England roads
had deficit equal to half of 1 per
cent on their valuation the trunk
lines would rebate to the New England
roads sufficient to bring their net earn
ings up to per cent on their
valuation.
This has one important advantage
over change in the division of rates.
1t lays the burden on the trunk lines
that profit most from the exchange
of business with the New Haven and
Boston & Maine. 1t applies practical
test to the profitableness of this bust
ness to the trunk lines. A trunk line
can test out for itself whether it wants
this business or not. II it thinks it
business; if it thinks it Improbable
it can refuse the business and let
some other line carry it.