Transport: Trackage South

No routes now existing shall be eliminated except with the consent of all participating lines or upon order of the Coordinator.

Into the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act he wrote for Congress last year Federal Transportation Coordinator Joseph Bartlett Eastman carved that clause as a stout weapon for just such a battle as he was in last week. For the first time he was telling potent carriers how to route their trains and for the first time the railroads were openly challenging his authority to dictate on ordinary traffic matters. The immediate stake was $1.000,000 per year in passenger revenue between Chicago and points South. The larger issue was the whole principle of one-man control over the railroad map of the U. S.

Trouble started in September when Louisville & Nashville R. R. decided to route its Chicago-Florida passenger business over Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. (“Big Four”) instead of over Chicago & Eastern Illinois’. It had been doing business with C. & E. I. for half, a century, had run its crack Southern trains over the C. & E. I. route since 1904. But C. & E. I. is now in financial distress and reputedly has difficulty getting Pullman Co.’s best equipment for through sleeper service to Florida. Big Four, as a New York Central subsidiary, gets the very best. Both lines run from Chicago to Evansville, Ind. Big Four’s better equipment and ability to bring in business were alone sufficient to interest L. & N. But there was something else. If L. & N. sent its passenger trains out of Chicago over Big Four tracks, New York Central would reciprocate by routing plenty of freight over L. & N. The deal was made without much difficulty.

Heavily in debt to the U. S. Government, C. & E. I. had presented to the Interstate Commerce Commission the first reorganization plan under the Railroad Bankruptcy Act. The I. C. C. is to begin hearings on the plan early next month. To take away any of C. & E. I.’s meagre traffic now would, as its bondholders well knew, leave little to reorganize.

Straightway C. & E. I. appealed to Federal Coordinator Eastman for protection. He requested the three Regional Coordinating Committees to look into the matter. Their unanimous decision was that L. & N. had a perfect right to reroute its passenger trains over Big Four, but that it should continue sending its two principal mail trains over C. & E. I. Elated, L. & N. and Big Four were all set to begin operations fortnight ago. Through tickets and new timetables were prepared. Then Coordinator Eastman did an extraordinary thing. He overruled the Regional Coordinators’ recommendations and ordered L. & N. not to use Big Four tracks under penalty of a fine of from $1,000 to $20,000 per day for each violation. The order was to become effective in 20 days.

L. & N. was highly annoyed. So was Big Four. So was New York Central. It was Mr. Eastman’s first such order under the broad powers granted him by Congress. First impulse of the annoyed railroads was to defy his order, see what would happen. Before they could do that, however, C. & E. I. went into Chicago Federal Court, got an injunction restraining them from violating the Eastman ruling even before it took effect. New York Central promptly announced it would comply with the order, but would take legal steps to have it rescinded.

Last week New York Central and L. & N. filed a joint petition in Chicago Federal Court to have Mr. Eastman’s order annulled on the ground that he had exceeded his authority. Their petition admitted C. & E. I. was in “unfortunate difficulties,” but cited this as all the more reason for dissolving the 50-year-old working agreement. They pointed to a section of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act which empowers the Coordinator to act only if Regional Co-ordinators fail to do so. In the present case, they claim, the Regional Co-ordinators had already acted when Mr. Eastman issued his order overruling them. Mr. Eastman’s attitude is that “the public interest is vitally affected.” that C. & E. I. is “in no condition to endure such a further blow as is now aimed at it.”

The trackage in dispute is a 287-mi. run between Chicago and Evansville. C. & E. I. has 162 mi. of double track on this stretch, operates trains at 70 m.p.h., uses automatic train controls, serves a population of some 140,000. Big Four, with almost identical mileage, has only 92 mi. of double track, operates trains at 55 m.p.h., uses no automatic train controls, serves less than 50,000 people. Mr. Eastman claimed additional expenditures would be needed for Big Four to equal the “safety, comfort or convenience to the public” now afforded by C. & E. I. To avoid preventable expense and duplication of service is one of his prime duties. Big Four grants this, but maintains that in the presentinstance he has not only gone beyond his jurisdiction, but has virtually confiscated its property without due process of law.

Upon its working agreement with L. & N., C. & E. I. depends for about one-tenth of its gross revenue, derived principally from three Southern express trains—Dixie Flyer, Dixie Mail and Dixie Express.