Virginian Passenger Service
CASE NO. 12067
In re: Application of The Virginian Railway Company to discontinue the operation of passenger train service in Virginia.
ORDER OF APRIL 7, 1954, O. B. 43, p. 55
By petition filed with the State Corporation Commission The Virginia Railway Company seeks authority to discontinue the operation of all passenger train service in Virginia. It appearing to the Commission that this matter should come before it for a formal hearing;
IT IS ORDERED, That the matter be, and it is hereby, docketed for hearing before the State Corporation Commission in its courtroom in the State Office Building in the City of Richmond at 10:00 o'clock, a.m., on June 9, 1954.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the petitioner immediately post a notice at each station which will be affected which notice shall advise the public of the purposes of the petition, the time and place of the hearing and that all interested parties should appear before the Commission at said time and place and present any pertinent testimony.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the petitioner have published at least once a week for two consecutive weeks prior to the hearing a notice to the public advising of the purposes of the petition, time and place of hearing and that all interested parties should appear before the Commission at said time and place and present any pertinent testimony, which notice shall appear not later than ten days prior to the hearing and shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the following Cities and Towns:
Norfolk, Suffolk, Victoria, Brookneal, Altavista, Roanoke and Narrows.
ORDER OF JULY 26, 1954, O. B. 43, p. 124
The application of The Virginian Railway Company for authority to discontinue all passenger train service in Virginia came on for hearing before the Commission in its courtroom at Richmond on June 9, 1954, Commissioners Hooker, King and Catterall sitting. Hearings were had on June 10 and again on June 15.
Appearances were as follows:
Leonard G. Muse, Walter C. Plunkett, Martin A. Meyer, Jr., and J. O. Atkinson for the petitioner. For objectors: R. S. Weaver, Jr., for Board of Supervisors, Lunenburg County, Victoria Rotary Club and Victoria Junior Woman's Club; F. W. Joseph for Colonial Stores, Incorporated; R. E. Williams, Jr., for Town Council of Victoria, Virginia; H. A. Hogan for Craddock Terry Shoe Corporation; Samuel H. Allen for Lunenburg County; M. A. Hubbard for Virginia Farm Bureau; Philip H. Elliott for Third Division, National Postal Transport Association; D. Woodrow Bird for Giles County Board of Supervisors; E. L. Sutton for Order of Railway Conductors of America; W. H. Irvine and S. J. Thompson for Citizens and Board of Supervisors of Campbell County; A. S. Harrison, Jr., Lawrenceville, Virginia; J. C. Hutcheson for Board of Supervisors and patrons of Brunswick County; E. P. Barrow for citizens of Brunswick County; J. S. Gunn for Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen; J. S. Brittingham for Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen; Charles F. Tankersley for Brotherhood of Railway Clerks and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees. William C. Seibert appeared for the Commission.
The Virginian Railway Company now operates one train each way between Norfolk, Virginia, and Roanoke, Virginia. The train leaves Norfolk at 8:00 A. M., and arrives at Roanoke at 4:00 P. M., and the eastbound train leaves Roanoke at 8:00 A. M., and arrives at Norfolk at 4:00 P. M. There is another train operated between Roanoke and the West Virginia line which train leaves Roanoke at 7:30 A. M., and runs to Page, West Virginia, and reaches that point at 2:46 P. M. The eastbound train leaves Page at 9:28 A. M., and arrives at Roanoke at 4:35 P. M.
There is no connection between the trains east of Roanoke and those west of Roanoke and the schedules are not set up to encourage the movement of traffic to either Norfolk or to Roanoke. For a passenger east of Roanoke to attend to any business in either place under the present schedule it would require that such a passenger spend two nights and one day if he visited Roanoke or Norfolk.
Considerable testimony and exhibits were presented showing the continued losses in the operation of the trains and a showing was made of the decrease in the number of passengers using the trains, but in the presentation of the case it was developed that the officials of The Virginian Railway had little, if any, interest in passenger traffic. It appears that the interest of this railroad has been in its coal traffic and as expressed by one of its witnesses its passenger operation is a very perfunctory thing. Little, if any, consideration has heretofore been given to the passenger situation and the record fails to show any attempt to encourage passenger traffic.
The railroad has been in the past a very prosperous railroad and its present condition is not unsatisfactory.
The equipment is old and gets very dirty. While the record indicates that the railroad is purchasing diesel equipment, it uses steam locomotives for these trains with the result that travel on this railroad is similar to that in the early part of this century.
The officials of this railroad admit they do not use their own railroad and the mystery of the whole case is that any passengers use the service. The exhibits show a passenger potential which might be tapped for revenue sources.
There are few parallel roads and these roads do not extend along the line for any great distance. The highways generally bisect the railroad and the nearest east-and-west railroad furnishing any passenger service is the Norfolk and Western Railway, some distance away.
There is considerable mail and express handled by these trains. Not alone is a community concerned with the ability to use trains for travel, but the communities are vitally concerned in their express and mail service. While it is the duty of the United States Post Office Department to provide mail service, the Commission cannot close its eyes to the effect on communities when this service is disturbed and it must recognize the effect on the communities when there is a disruption of express service.
The Commission had before it a large number of representative witnesses objecting to the discontinuance of this passenger train service, the only passenger service furnished by this railroad.
The railroad formerly connected at Charleston, West Virginia, with the New York Central by operation over the line of that railroad from Deepwater, West Virginia. The terminus of this railroad in West Virginia is at Page. It has no connection at that point with any other railroad and it was stated in the record the trains make no attempt to connect with any other railroad where they serve common points.
The Norfolk and Western Railway parallels the line of The Virginian Railway west of Roanoke and there are some highways which also parallel this line, although the whole line is not served by primary highways, however, from the record before us it appears that the operation in Virginia west of Roanoke, so far as Virginia traffic is concerned, could be discontinued without much inconvenience to the public, but such a discontinuance may be adverse to the public needs in West Virginia. Consequently service should be continued until the West Virginia Commission has had an opportunity to pass on this matter.
The Commission is of the belief that The Virginian Railway has operated its passenger service between Roanoke and Norfolk without regard to the needs of the communities and with no thought of encouraging passenger traffic. Apparently no attempt has been made to develop the territory for passenger travel by the furnishing of lighter equipment and quicker service. No attempt has apparently been made to determine a schedule which might better serve Norfolk and Roanoke. It might be possible that a break in the line could be made at Victoria, operating daily from Victoria to Norfolk and return and operating daily from Victoria to Roanoke and return. There are possibilities of operation of light weight equipment and single units. We are of the belief that the people along the line of The Virginian Railway should be given better and more efficient passenger service, and that the petition should be denied at this time to allow the petitioner to study the situation and provide more reasonable and better service and if at the end of not less than twelve months of improved service with better equipment there is not substantial improvement in the use of these trains by the public, then at the end of such period the Commission will consider another petition from The Virginian Railway for the discontinuance of the trains between Roanoke and Norfolk, Virginia.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, That the petition of The Virginian Railway Company for authority to discontinue the operation of passenger train service between Norfolk and Roanoke, Virginia, be, and it is hereby, denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Commission finds that there is no need of passenger train service between Roanoke and the Virginia-West Virginia State line, but the discontinuance of such service shall not be permitted until the West Virginia Commission has had an opportunity to pass on this matter.
CATTERALL, COMMISSIONER, DISSENTING
The number of passengers carried by The Virginian Railway in Virginia has declined from 446,000 in 1919 to 11,000 in 1953. The main reason for the falling off of passenger traffic is the increased use of private automobiles. Another reason why there are few passengers is that the service is bad, and one reason the service is bad is because there are few passengers. During the first four months of 1954, the average number of passengers on these trains at any given time was one. The members of the train crew outnumber the passengers, and the passenger revenue is three and a half cents a mile, or about half what it costs to operate a station wagon. In spite of large revenues from mail and express, the loss on the Virginia part of the run is over $200,000 a year. In these circumstances, it seems to me that to require the applicant to furnish passenger service is unreasonable and unjust and deprives it of property without due process of law.
ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 1954, O. B. 43, p. 224
In the order of the Commission of July 26, 1954, it was found that there is no need for passenger train service between Roanoke and the Virginia-West Virginia State line, but the discontinuance of the service was not permitted until the West Virginia Commission had an opportunity to pass upon the discontinuance of train service in West Virginia.
The Commission being informed by the petitioner that it has presented its case before the West Virginia Commission and the petitioner having requested a final order with respect to the service between Roanoke, Virginia, and the Virginia-West Virginia State line;
IT IS ORDERED, That The Virginian Railway Company be, and it is hereby, permitted on and after December 31, 1954, to discontinue passenger train service between Roanoke, Virginia, and the Virginia-West Virginia State line.