Mr. Bennett, and others, Dissatisfied with Longton's Train Service

[W. Gray]

From the Twenty-first Report of the Board of Railroad Commissioners, State of Kansas, November 30, 1909, and November 30, 1910

No. 782.—Filed February 4, 1909. PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE. F. S. Bennett et al. vs. A. T. & S. F. Rly. Co.

The following complaint was filed with the Board:

"We, the undersigned petitioners, do hereby certify that we are residing and doing business in Longton and tributary thereto; said Longton being on the Southern Kansas division of the Santa Fe railroad. We do hereby petition you to grant us better passenger and mail service. In discontinuing our night trains Nos. 203 and 204, we have and are suffering loss of time, money and property. Not only the unnecessary inconvenience in going to or from our places of business do we suffer, but in our mail and market facilities are we damaged. Our lands, city property and live stock interests are greatly depreciating. Home seekers decline to purchase homes in a locality where such poor service exists; and by the removal of trains 203 and 204 it places extra burden on trains 201 and 202, so that it is an everyday occurrence and necessity for people to stand up in the aisles of the cars for miles and miles, ladies being compelled to do this, and also to go to the smoking cars for accommodations, and is even then inadequate. Such poor service, by the removal of these trains 203 and 204, by the loss of time and mail facilities, is a hardship upon us, and an injury to our business and property, an injury and imposition on the patrons of your road. We do most respectfully request and urge your immediate attention to this condition, and the putting on trains 203 and 204, or similar trains, that will give us reasonable mail and passenger service. We request a very early consideration."

To this complaint the respondent answered as follows:
"We have considered this matter very carefully, not only since receipt of this petition but at other times previous thereto.

"The conditions at present do not justify or warrant double daily service on that part of the line. We have a daylight service now that has Kansas City and all connections from the east.

"This service if installed would be entirely for local service to provide ways for people to reach, for instance, Winfield in the morning and return in the evening. It is possible, with an increase in business or a much better business than we now have, that we might install this service without loss. We are securing information which will enable us to decide whether there is hazard of much loss if this service should be installed with our spring or summer time card, and when we have this information I will write you again. If conditions warrant it the Commission may be assured we will have pleasure in installing the service. Will probably prepare our spring time card in May.

Yours truly,
(Signed) J. E. HURLEY, General Manager.

A copy, of such answer was forwarded to complainant with the following letter:

"With further reference to yours of the 4th ult., enclosing petitions praying for the establishment of additional passenger train service on the Southern Kansas division of the A. T. & S. F. Rly., beg to advise you that the Board is just in receipt of answer of the respondent company, a copy of which is herewith enclosed for your information.

"You will please understand that any order made by the Board must be made upon a sufficient showing of business afforded, the company to make such order enforceable in the courts as the making of an order without such a showing simply involves the state in expensive and useless litigation. If you feel that you can make such a showing as would warrant the Board in granting the relief prayed for, on the filing of a reply to this answer, the Board will set the case for a hearing at its office in Topeka, Kan."

On June 30, 1909, no showing of earnings having been made, the case was closed.