Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. (12/12/63)

December 12, 1963

PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.



Appeal, No. 2, March T., 1964, from order of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, No. 89068, in case of Pennsylvania Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

Donald A. Brinkworth, with him Aloysius F. Mahler, for appellant.

S. Maxwell Flitter, Assistant Counsel, with him Joseph C. Bruno, Chief Counsel, for Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Watkins

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 403]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission denying the application of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the appellant, to change the status of its station at Reynoldsville, Jefferson County, from an agency freight station to that of a non-agency, carload only, freight station.

This Court has already decided a number of these cases in which the change was permitted and has held that the factors to be considered in the discontinuance of service at an agency freight station are (1) accessibility to other stations; (2) the ratio of cost of maintaining the station to revenue received; and (3) the necessity for and inconvenience to the public as a whole. N.Y. Central RR. Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 636, 166 A.2d 55 (1960). Additional factors that have entered into the decisions are: (1) the condition of the industry as it bears upon the reasonableness of the expenditures in relation to the benefit and convenience of the public; and (2) whether a saving can be effected without inconvenience to the

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 404]

    public. Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 382, 178 A.2d 856 (1962).

There is no need of detailed discussion in this case with the exception of the cost-revenue ratio. See the full discussion in Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., supra. See also: N.Y. Central RR. v. Pa. P.U.C., 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 458, 182 A.2d 251 71962). This case is indistinguishable as to the other factors from the Coalport case and the Lock Haven case cited above.

Reynoldsville station is in the Borough of Reynoldsville, a residential and mining community of 3160 population. It is about fifteen miles east of the agency at Brookville and about seven miles west of the agency at Falls Creek. The application proposed to discontinue agency and intrastate less-than-carload service (L.C.L.) and to place the Reynoldsville station under the jurisdiction of the agency at Falls Creek, seven miles away. Future business would be transacted through the Falls Creek agency with the company absorbing telephone calls occasioned by this mode of doing business. The service would remain the same, except there would be no L.C.L. service at Reynoldsville and the agent would be located at Falls Creek.

As we said in Pa. Railroad Co. v. Pa. P.U.C., supra, at page 384: "The function of this Court on appeal, the factors to be considered and the law applicable to cases of this nature have been fully and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.