Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

LXV.

THE

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF WALTER RAYMONT AGAINST

BROOKLYN HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO THE OPERATION OF CARS ON THE CALVARY CEMETERY LINE OF SAID COMPANY'S RAILROAD.

November 10, 1905.

This complaint, by Walter Raymont, of Brooklyn, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on September 2, 1905. It alleged that the company should operate a car on its Calvary Cemetery line after 12:15 a. m. on week days, and after 12 a. m. on Sundays. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered. A report in the matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board and this Board recommended to the company that two additional trips be run

on this line after 12:15 a. m.,-one to be scheduled at 12:45 a. m. and the other at 1:15 a. m. The company informed the Board that this recommendation had been complied with. The case was closed. (Case No. 3414.)

LXVI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE OLEAN STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

AGAINST THE PITTSBURG, SHAWMUT AND NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by the Olean Street Railway Company against the Pittsburg, Shawmut and Northern Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on October 11, 1905. It alleged that the steam railroad company had pushed a derrick car against a bridge used by cars of the Olean Street Railway Company on State street, Olean, “ nearly knocking it down and considerably damaging it.” A copy of the complaint was sent to the steam railroad company, which answered that,

The conductor in charge of the train containing the derrick car omitted to ascertain in advance on approaching the bridge of the Olean Street Railway Company, at State street in Olean, that the derrick car would not pass under the bridge,” and that the clearance of the bridge should be greater. A copy of this answer was sent to the complaining company, which replied, and the case was closed. (Case No. 3431.)

[ocr errors]

*

*

LXVII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF GEORGE C. HILLS AGAINST THE BROOKLYN

HEIGHTS RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO THE LOCKING OF REAR DOORS OF CARS

IN ELEVATED RAILROAD TRAINS.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by George C. Hills, of Brooklyn, against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company was filed with Board on October 18, 1905. It protested against the practice of locking the rear doors of cars in trains arriving from Bath Beach or Seventy-fourth street, at the Thirtysixth street station on the elevated line operated by said company. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered that a notice had been posted by the superintendent of its elevated lines requiring all end doors of cars to remain unlocked while trains were in service.

A copy of this answer was sent to complainant, who replied, and the case closed. (Case No. 3437.)

was

LXVIII.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF C. W. BLY IN RELATION TO A STEAM

BAILROAD USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BEING CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY IN THE TOWNS OF PITTSFORD AND PERINTON, MONROE COUNTY.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by C. W. Bly, of Pittsford, was filed with this Board on October 17, 1905. It aileged that a construction company was engaged in building a steam railroad along a public highway in the towns of Pittsford and Perinton, Monroe county,“ without the consent of the property owners or any one else as near as I can learn.” A report in the matter was made by an inspector of the Board, from which it appears that the construction company in question is building a street surface electric railroad in the locality in question, and that the steam railroad is being used in the construction work and will be removed when construction is finished; also that the construction company had arranged with property owners for the construction of inat portion of the temporary steam railroad on private right of way and have the highway commissioners' consents for the construction of that portion of the temporary railroad which is on the highways. The complainant informed this Board, “I think that everything will now be settled satisfactory to all parties," and the case was closed. (Case No. 3438.)

LXIX.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF B. W. DINSMORE AGAINST THE NEW

YORK CITY RAILWAY COMPANY IN RELATION TO NOISE MADE BY CARS ON AMSTERDAM AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by B. W. Dinsmore, of New York city, against the New York City Railway Company, was filed with this Board on June 26, 1905. It alleged that cars of said company were allowed to make unnecessary noise on Amsterdam avenue in the locality where complainant lived. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered,

Upon investigation it was found that an occasional car made unnecessary noise on account of some needed adjustment in the running gear. The matter was taken in hand at once and the general master mechanic instructed to remove all cause for complaint as far as possible. The transportation department was also instructed to minimize the noise in Mr. Dinsmore's neighborhood

.” A copy of the company's answer was sent to the complainant, who replied, reiterating the complaint. A report in the matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board, to the following effect: “*

On July 19, 1905, between the hours of 10 and 12 p. m., I made an investigation of the noise made by cars in front of Mr. Dinsmore's house. During that time I observed that two cars passed on flat wheels also three with worn gears and pinions, which made an unusual noise. None of the other cars run made more than the usual amount of noise made by trolley cars running up slight grades such as exist at this point

The attention of the company was called to the statement in the report as to two cars with flat wheels and three with worn gears and pinions, the company replying that,

I would state that it is our rule to not start car with a flat wheel from car barns for operation on the Amsterdam avenue, or any other line, and it seems to be impossible to avoid flat wheels at all times, but when flat spots are made, the cars are taken off the run as soon as possible. The inspectors are all carefully instructed to report cars making unusual noise to their division office, and arrangements are made to withdraw them from the service. While there may have been some cause at some particular

time for Mr. Dinsmore's complaint, I feel perfectly safe in saying that as a rule the cars on Amsterdam line are in general good condition and operated so as to give the least possible cause for complaint

A copy of this reply was sent to complainant. Nothing further was heard from complainant, and the case was closed. (Case No. 3377.)

LXX.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF CLAYTON L. EARLY, FOR A CLIENT,

AGAINST THE NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO FENCES.

November 10, 1905. This complaint, by_Clayton L. Early, of Andover, for a client, against the New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company, was filed with this . Board on September 1, 1905. It alleged lack of fence of said company along said client's farm. A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered that the fence had been constructed. A copy of this answer was sent to complainant. Nothing further was heard from complainant, and the case was closed. (Case No. 3410.)

LXXI.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF HADDOCK, BLANCHARD & Co. AGAINST

THE ULSTER AND DELAWARE RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO SWITCHING CHARGE.

November 10, 1905.

*

#

This complaint, by Haddock, Blanchard & Co., of Binghamton, against the Ulster and Delaware Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on October 21, 1905. It is in reference to a switching charge of $10 a car on two cars of coal shipped to Brown's station on the Ulster and Delaware Railroad, the cars reaching the Ulster and Delaware Railroad from the West Shore Railroad at Kingston, the complaint stating that,

The shipment of the coal above referred to was consigned from the mines in Pennsylvania through to Brown Station, N. Y., and the Ulster and Delaware Railroad Co. inform us that the switching charge referred to was for switching the coal from the tracks of the West Shore Railroad at Kingston, N. Y., to their tracks at that same place. Now, as the coal was consigned through to destination and routed for delivery via the Ulster and Delaware railroad, it seems to the writer as though no switching charge could consistently be made, and that such charge when it was made was a violation of traffic laws and rules, although just how this would apply I am unable to state

A copy of the complaint was sent to the company, which answered, “ *

That the coal referred to was not shipped under any through tariff from any point in Pennsylvania to destination on the Ulster and Delaware railroad, as this company has no through tariffs in connection with the West Shore railroad, and consequently the switching charge referred to was not a part of any through rate. The switching charge of $10 per car applies on all anthracite coal switched from the tracks of the West Shore railroad to the tracks of this company at Kingston, N. Y.

." A copy of this answer was sent to complainants, who replied. The case was closed. (Case No. 3441.)

量 *

*

#

[ocr errors]

*

LXXII. IN THE MATTER OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE RUTLAND RAILROAD COMPANY AS

TO CONDITION OF FENCES AND AS TO FARM CROSSINGS ALONG COMPLAINANTS' LANDS.

November 10, 1905. During 1905 a number of complaints were received from farmers along the line of the Rutland Railroad Company (Chatham and Lebanon Valley division) as to lack of fences of said company along complainants' lands, and in some instances as to lack of farm crossings. At the time of writing this report most of these complaints are closed, the fences, and in some instances farm crossings, having been constructed,—the names of complainants (where the complainants are closed), being as follows: James I. Dunham of Old Chatham; Edwin M. Dorland of Old Chatham (see p. 91, 1903 report of this Board); Bert Bradley of Old Chatham; D. H. Angell of Old Chatham; F. E. Rosenburg of North Petersburg;

W. R. Jenks of Old Chatham; C. N. Pease and others of Stephentown; S. H. Richmond of New Lebanan Center; William H. Allen of East Nassau; H. W. Wright and C. W. Spencer of New Lebanon. (Cases Nos. 3346, 2914, 3362, 3351, 3408, 3383, 3397, 3413, 3420, 3421.)

Stations and Station Buildings.

I.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF J. J. ELLIS OF Avoca AGAINST THE

ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO STATION.

January 3, 1905. This complaint, by J. J. Ellis of Avoca, against the Erie Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on November 29, 1904. It alleged that the station of said company at Avoca was not heated. Correspondence with the company resulted in the station being heated. The case was closed. (Case No. 3258.)

II.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF ANNA M. RAULE AGAINST THE NEW

YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY AS TO LACK OF PASSENGER STATION AT SHERMAN PARK.

January 3, 1905. This complaint, by Anna M. Raule against the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, was filed with this Board on January 12, 1904. It alleged that there should be a regular passenger station at Sherman Park, Westchester county, on the Harlem division of said company's railroad. This case was closed. In the matter of another similar complaint (residents of Sherman Park) now pending before this Board, the company has informed this Board that,

We have arranged to proceed with the erection of a passenger station suitable to the needs at that point

.” (Case No. 3062.)

*

III.

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF John G. CLARK OF STAPLETON AS TO

THE CLIFTON STATION OF THE STATEN ISLAND RAPID TRANSIT RAILWAY COMPANY.

February 8, 1905. This complaint, by John G. Clark, of Stapleton, against the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company was filed with this Board on December 27, 1904. It alleged that said company at Clifton,

has erected a new waiting room about 200 feet distant from the location of the room now in use, and contemplates using that alone in the near future, for the benefit and comfort of its passengers

A report in the matter was made by the electrical expert of this Board and complainant was informed that in the opinion of this Board the change in location of this station did not come within the provisions of section 34 of the Railroad Law requiring the consent of this Board to the discontinuance of a station. The case was closed. (Case No. 3276.)

« AnteriorContinuar »