transit traffic in excess of that for through traffic. Complainants had not data of their own as to the time consumed in switching operations within the railroad yard at the various transit points or concerning the extent of car detention therein in respect of transit traffic and through traffic. They sought to obtain this information by subpœnaing as witnesses 19 officials of defendant carriers directly in charge of such switching operations. The testimony of these witnesses, however, was not of sufficiently definite character to be of much assistance in developing the switching and car-detention costs within the railroad yards. Complainants made no additional attempt during the further hearing to complete their desired showing as to the entire amount of the extra cost involved in rendering the transit service. The only data introduced by them during the further hearing directly relating to the cost of performing the transit service consisted of the special tests and studies above mentioned, purporting to show the cost to the carrier per transited car for switching between the railroad yard and the creosoting plant and at the plant, and the car-detention cost for the loaded and empty car movements involved.

Complainants' cost studies are criticized by defendants as materially understating alleged switching and car-detention cost because of certain errors recurring through all of the studies. On brief, in illustrating their contentions as to the amount of the transit cost at each place, complainants have made no use of such cost studies and have used the results of their special tests only in respect of the amount of loaded-car detention between the railroad yard and creosoting plant and at the plant. As set forth in their brief it is now complainants' position that none of the switching costs between the railroad yard and the plant and at the plant should enter into and constitute a part of the cost of rendering the transit service, and that the percentage relationship of empty cars to loaded cars developed from their tests is not representative for the purpose of determining the amount of empty-car detention applicable to transit traffic. Complainants contend that the amount of transit tonnage to and from the creosoting plant is small, and that the amount of the nontransit tonnage, consisting of coal, creosote oil, forest products, and other commodities not moving on a transit basis is large; that daily switching movements between the railroad yards and the creosoting plants are compelled for the purpose of handling this nontransit tonnage; that the cost of these switch movements would be precisely the same regardless of the inclusion of some transit freight in such movements; and that on this account none of the expense of switching from the railroad

yards and back would be a part of the extra cost of performing the transit service.

Upon the premises as above outlined complainants contend that the only extra costs chargeable to the performance of the transit service are (1) expense of one extra yard-classification service; (2) expense of one extra weighing service; (3) expense of extra use or detention of the cars, including 6 per cent return upon an estimated average value of the cars, the extra cost varying at the several transit points; and (4) a moderate allowance for extra clerical

expense.

The following table gives a summary of complainants' estimate of the extra cost to each carrier directly serving each creosoting plant of handling a transit shipment over that of a through shipment:

1 Amount shown includes 45 cents for one extra classification, 75 cents for one extra weighing, and 50 cents for extra clerical expense.

2 Amount shown is based on average detention cost of 89 cents per car-day applied to average detention of inbound and outbound loaded cars at plant and between plant and railroad yard, plus estimated time of one day in railroad yard, to aggregate of which 25 per cent is added as estimated detention due to empty movement of transit cars.

Based upon the costs indicated in the above table the average at all plants would be $4.66 per car, and for all carriers indicated, $4.56 per car.

As herein before indicated the 2.5 cents per 100 pounds is the uniform basis applying at all of the creosoting plants, total charges for the service ranging from $7.50 for 30,000 pounds to $12.50 per car of 50,000 pounds, excess in proportion. Such charges are exclusive of switching charges at certain of the places where extra switching charges are not absorbed by the line-haul carrier. Based upon their showing as to the alleged transit costs at different points as set forth

in the foregoing table, complainants concede that there is warrant for a uniform charge. They contend that the charge should not exceed $5 per car based on an average loading of 48,000 pounds.

The bases or methods used by complainants in arriving at the four unit costs indicated in the foregoing table warrant some discussion. Extra classification service and extra weighing service.-As before indicated complainants were unable satisfactorily to develop from their witnesses, including those subpoenaed, figures from which to evolve cost per car for extra classification service and extra weighing service; the expenses per car of 45 cents and 75 cents for those services, respectively, were taken from defendants' cost studies.

Extra car detention.-As a basis for arriving at the extra cost to which the carrier is subjected by reason of extra car use or detention complainants, (a) first ascertained the average cost per car-day for maintenance and return upon the value of the car, (b) applied this to the extra time the loaded car is detained in transit service over that in through service, (c) and made separate allowance for emptycar detention costs upon the basis of a percentage of the loaded-car detention cost.

Based upon the repairs, depreciation, and retirements of all freight-carrying cars owned and leased by all Class I railroads during calendar years 1926, 1927, and 1928, complainants found the average car-maintenance expense to be 56 cents per car-day. In arriving at this figure no allowance was made for the unserviceability of the cars during the periods when they were awaiting or undergoing repairs, nor for idleness during periods of slack traffic, on the ground that these exigencies can not, primarily, be attributed to the performance of transit service. To the maintenance expense as thus determined, complainants added 33 cents per car-day representing 6 per cent return on an assumed average value of $2,000 for the cars, resulting in a total of 89 cents per car-day for maintenance and return upon the value of the cars.

Complainants' next step was to apply the average cost of 89 cents per car-day for maintenance and return on value to the extra time the cars are detained in transit service over that in through service. For the average length of time the transited car is detained in loaded movement at the creosoting plant and between the plant and the railroad yard, complainants relied upon the records kept by the respective plants during the two-weeks' test period previously referred to. Complainants' use of the carriers' cost studies relating to extra detention of transited cars over through cars within the railroad yard in the absence of data of its own as to that feature, has already been adverted to. These studies make no segregation, except in a few instances, between the detention within the railroad yard and

the detention between the railroad yard and the plant and at the plant, and in most instances the studies do not segregate loaded-car detention and empty-car detention. Complainants, nevertheless, gave consideration to these studies and after rejecting the amount of detention shown therein as being excessive on account of certain alleged defects in some of the figures, reached the conclusion that the extra detention of a transited car over a through car within the railroad yard is generally not in excess of one day and at most is not in excess of two days. On brief, however, in their summarization of the alleged transit costs the amount included for car-detention cost is based upon the loaded-car detention at the plant and between the plant and the railroad yard as shown by their tests, to which detention they uniformly add one day as representing the estimated amount of the extra detention within the railroad yard of a transited car, inbound and outbound, over that of a through car.

Complainants assert that but little, if any, of the cost of emptycar detention is chargeable to these transit processes. In this connection they refer to the tests made by them for the purpose of showing facts as to all car movements into and out of each creosoting plant. A summary of the results of these tests, made at each plant during a two weeks' period shows the number of loaded cars inbound, the number of cars reloaded, the number of cars released empty, the number of empty cars ordered in for loading, and the number of loaded cars forwarded. The summary indicates that in nearly all instances the ratio of empty to loaded cars is very high. Complainants assert, however, that such ratios are not representative of the empty to loaded car relationship for transit traffic for several reasons; that the summary of actual car movements ignores the fact that included therein are such commodities as coal, creosote oil in tank cars, and local shipments of other commodities not subject to the transit arrangement; that the summary completely ignores the nontransit character of much the larger part of the total inbound and outbound traffic arising from shipments of forest products that are trucked, shipments that move in or out by water, shipments on which the right to transit has expired by time limitation, shipments of company material, and shipments from or to nontransit territories. It is also contended that the policy of the carrier with respect to the release of foreign equipment and the substitution of one type of equipment for another after the inbound car has been unloaded, is largely responsible for the high proportion of empty movement.

As to transited traffic, complainants contend that there is no condition tending to create a large proportion of empty movement; that a plant can not ship out more than it ships in, nor that it can indefinitely ship in more than it ships out, except probably to the

slight extent of wastage, which in turn is generally offset by the added weight of the creosote oil, and that once a plant has been stocked, the ordinary course of events would involve a synchronized flow of traffic inbound and outbound. Complainants further assert that such usual condition would, therefore, prevail and altogether avoid any inherent necessity for more than a nominal number of empty cars being created by or supplied for the plants on account of transit traffic. Giving consideration to the fact that these are not normal times, however, complainants estimate that the prevailing lack of balance between the inbound and the outbound shipments would occasion not more than 20 to 25 per cent of empty-car situations. They estimate the cost of the empty-car detention at 25 per cent of the cost of the loaded-car detention involved in connection with the transit traffic.

Extra clerical expense.-As in respect of figures covering extra classification and extra weighing service, complainants had no data of their own relating to extra clerical expense involved in billing and accounting for a transited shipment over that involved for a through shipment, but they gave consideration to cost figures for this service set forth in defendants' studies. The figures were rejected as being excessive on the ground substantially that clerical expenses per transited car were not included in several of defendants' cost studies; that those shown in some 15 of the studies range. from 43 cents to $1.91 with an average of $1.27 per car for all combined; that in only about one-half of the 15 studies the amount of clerical expense was based upon the actual time consumed by various employees in billing, checking, accounting, and making all necessary adjustments and records in connection with the transaction, and that in the remainder of the studies clerical expense was based upon the average station-office expense per consignment for all traffic, carload and less than carload, received at and shipped from the transit point, which average per consignment was assumed to be representative for transit traffic, and which was then doubled by reason of the fact that a transit transaction requires clerical services in connection with both the inbound and outbound movements. Complainants contend that figures arrived at in this manner do not reflect the extra clerical expense involved for a transit shipment over that for a through shipment, and that in view of the small proportion that the movement of forest products under transit bears to the total volume of business done, it is impossible to imagine that the clerical expenses of the railroads are swelled thereby in any significant amount. In view of the foregoing circumstances and upon the ground that the item of extra clerical expense is not of sufficient importance to materially effect conclusions of this proceeding, com