dealing with these properties in various places throughout the country and making traffic contracts, where I am associated with the interurban property, I have not found any two conditions similar. I am not prepared to say that I would not duplicate any contract I have made, but I do say that I would not be willing to duplicate any one of them without a thorough investigation first, to ascertain whether the former contract or that basis of agreement was best adapted to the new situation.

I have a case in mind where we have made a traffic contract with a local company in a city of upward of 50,000 people. We are paying there the lowest prevailing universal rate of fare and are allowed car mileage for the use of our cars. At the other end of this line we were met with a similar proposition, which I declined, for the reason that in the first instance we were provided with a very good double track and very good service, and there was nothing to interfere with our interurban service so far as speed was concerned, while in the other instance, in the smaller town, we found a single track road, poorly operated, a decrepit power plant, and that the probabilities were that our service would be seriously interrupted if we used those tracks jointly. It finally came to a point where we were offered a three-cent universal transfer, but the transfer was not worth anything; the cars of the local road did not go anywhere. Therefore, I say every one of these cases must stand on its own bottom. Naturally the city road officials feel that if the interurban company is going to come into town it will bring business from beyond the city line; but I say that there are no two cases alike, and while this is a very interesting discussion, we won't get anywhere on it finally. The physical conditions, which I think Mr. Roberts gave priority to, and said that when the physical and electrical conditions were provided for the others would work themselves out, I do not agree with. I think if we settle the financial question properly we can meet the physical conditions, because we can take care of them with the earnings if we have them; at least that has been my experience. There are no two cases alike; therefore

I would like very much if this question were brought up again a year from now and let us see what we can learn with the benefit of the experience we would then have.

Mr. McCormack-I do not like to have a misunderstanding. The gentleman spoke as though the paper under discussion was written from the standpoint of city roads. The company I am identified with probably owns as large a mileage of suburban roads as any other company in the country, something over 1,300 miles, and the question of contracts between suburban roads and city roads is certainly of vast importance to them.

I will say further that the suburban roads, with the exception of one of our suburban roads running out of Cleveland, are owned by the parties who own the Cleveland Electric Railway, and the traffic agreement made there was thought to be an equitable one in that city. And I want to call your attention to page seven of my paper, where I have tried to get these traffic agreements of the different companies in the different cities throughout the United States-which states that comparatively few of the traffic arrangements in the various cities are exactly alike. There are almost invariably local conditions which have their effect, and frequently agreements which would be satisfactory in one place would be unfair in another. There are many reasons why the city company in one city should receive a higher rate for handling the cars of the interurban company than those in other places.

Another thing, the courts of the State of New York have held that the suburban company has no rights in the city and the city company cannot make a traffic agreement with them to let them in over the city streets; but the suburban company can get a franchise over the same streets in which the city company operates and then they can enter into a traffic agreement. I think the same thing is done in Pittsburg.

President Holmes-In view of the fact that quite a number of papers are to be brought before this convention, if we do not take up another one very soon I am afraid Mr. Vreeland will have us with him for a considerable time. I think

we had better close this discussion and take up Mr. Chamberlin's paper. I will ask Mr. Chamberlin to come to the platform and we will give him five minutes to point out the essential features of his paper. I take pleasure in introducing Mr. Eugene Chamberlin, superintendent of equipment of the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, New York City, who has prepared a paper on "The Best Form of Car for City Service."

After

Mr. Chamberlin-Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: the controversy which you have just had, which possibly could have been prolonged, it may have occurred to you that these controversies should not occur unless you had cars to perform this interurban traffic.

I was very much surprised and gratified to find this edition of my paper very handsomely printed and nicely bound provided by the association. Perhaps it was prepared on that plan so that your attention might not be too carefully drawn to the statements between the covers.

I would like, gentlemen, to call your attention to the first and last clause of this pamphlet. I do that for the purpose of protecting myself somewhat, and on the ground that Mr. McCormack's remarks lead us to believe that you had not carefully read his paper. The evident magnitude of the subject assigned and the opportunity offered for criticism causes. the writer to feel that any and all suggestions should be made. with a certain degree of caution, and that they should as far as possible be sustained by facts. The latter clause is still more important. The author of this paper fully realizes the task with which he has been honored and understands that a device of any character, to have and retain merit, must be subjected to the most severe criticism, which is now fully and freely invited, and he feels satisfied that with a body of men of your recognized ability and standing, all hobbies, if any such exist, will be for the time eliminated and justness and fairness govern all criticism of whatever character, and he believes that you, in common with himself, have an object to attain in determining the most satisfactory vehicle for electric roads, in

such an extent that a car designed to meet the conditions in one city would be but poorly adapted to meet the conditions of another city; and this, together with the fact (as was brought out in the discussion at the Kansas City Convention last October) that several electric railroad systems were giving much attention to the development of the most advantageous vehicle for each particular road, makes it difficult to suggest a car that would prove uniformly satisfactory.

The double-truck car having body of twenty-five feet length and upward is usually selected for heavy continuous city traffic, while the

single-truck car, with body, say from eighteen to twenty-one feet, is usually operated upon side lines where travel is fairly uniform, but not usually heavy. If this is a correct statement of the conditions, it is apparent that both the double and single-truck car has its particular function to perform, and each will, for some time at least, remain factors on electric roads in the handling of various classes of traffic.

It should be borne in mind that, for good and sufficient reasons, a number of electric roads do not provide a permanent equipment of trucks and motors for both Summer and Winter (closed and open) cars, buts at indicated periods transfer such equipment from one class of

centage of accidents, as compared with the ordinary open car, to be about one to three, covering a period of six years. This does not include accidents such as persons being brushed off the steps of an open car by objects in the street; falling under the guard rail by the car running rapidly into curves, etc. The comparison of accidents does not include any of these, and still the proportion is one to three in favor of the closed cars.

Now as to the question of brakes. Unquestionably, many street railway managers are passing through the experimental stage in testing the different kinds of brakes and determining the merits of each style and endeavoring to determine which will meet their needs in point of cost of maintenance and efficiency of operation, and it has occurred to the writer that advance opinions on this subject would be a trifle undesirable and might be attended with very unsatisfactory results at this particular time, and still such tests are made and determined by individual companies.

Last, but not least, the question of wheels. A certain type of a 420-pound wheel is recommended, thirty-three inches in diameter, two and five-eighths inch tread, which is shown in the paper, for the reasons described.

Now, gentleman, I do not anticipate immunity from accident as stated by our genial friend from Detroit, but I do expect the Golden Rule applied to the author of this paper.

THE BEST FORM OF CAR FOR CITY SERVICE.

A CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIOUS TYPES OF CAR AND ARRANGEMENT OF SEATS, INCLUDING BEST TYPE OF BRAKES AND WHEELS.

The American Street Railway Association

Gentlemen: The evident magnitude of the subject assigned, and the ideal opportunity offered for criticism, causes the writer to feel that any and all suggestions should be made with a certain degree of caution and that they should, so far as possible, be sustained by facts.

It is probable that traffic requirements in different cities vary to