SWITCHING

(Also see Section on Ex Parte 104, Part II)

Switching is that service performed in moving cars from place to place within a certain area of a station. Switching service differs from transportation service in that the latter consists in the moving of cars from one city or town to another. Transportation service is often defined as a "Line-haul," and a switching service preceding or following a transportation service is defined as "Line-haul Switching." A switching service performed in connection with a car loaded at one place to be unloaded at another place, when both places are within the switching limits of the same station, is defined as "Terminal Switching.')

SWITCHING: Definition

Switching is not as easy to define as might first appear. Boston Wool Trade Assn. vs. Director General, 69 1. C. C. 282. However, the Commission said in Des Moines Union Switching 231 1. C. C. 638, "Switching consists of all movements of railway cars on their own wheels other, than those in road trains running between stations, and also the movements of locomotives and motorcars under their own power incidental to such car movements. It excludes movements of yard locomotives within yard limits when assisting road trains in and out of terminals."
There are several classes of switching as follows:

• Accessorial Switching: Service which includes all the movements which are not an integral part of the through transportation of cars from origin points to destination points but which are essential to the transportation needs of the country and which are divided into the primary classes of
  • switching for icing,
  • switching for feeding and resting livestock,
  • switching for weighing,
  • switching for repairs, etc.
  Sioux City Switching, 241 I.C.C.53.
• Competitive Traffic is that which originates at points reached by more than one railroad. Minneapolis T. Assn. v. Chicago N&W Ry. Co. 245 I.C.C. 11, 12. Broadly speaking, competitive traffic is that for which two or more carriers may compete. Reciprocal Switching at Mobile, Ala. 208 I.C.C. 151, 152.
• Crosstown Switching: A service commonly known to mean local transfer from one industry to another within the same switching district. It is synonymous with the term intracity switching. Toledo Switching Absorption, 50 1. C. C. 18; Archer-Daniels-Midland Co. v. Alton R. Co., 246 I.C.C. 421, 425.
• Intra-Plant Switching: A switching movement from one place to another within the same plant or industry.
• Intermediate Switching: Is a kind of switching service which includes all the elements of switching performed by a carrier which neither originates nor terminates the shipment nor receives a line haul on that shipment. Des Moines Switching 231 I.C.C.631.
• Intra-Terminal Switching: Where a car is switched from a point of origin to another point of destination in the same switching district by the same carriers, the movement being, complete in itself. Boston Wool Trade Assn. v. Director General, 69 I.C.C. 282. Des Moines Switching, 231 1. C. C. 632.
• Inter-Terminal Switching: "A switching movement from a track of one carrier to a track of another carrier when both tracks are within the switching limits of the same station or industrial switching district." Citizens Gas Co. v. Director General, 64 1. C. C. 457. Des Moines Union Switching, 231 1. C. C. 631, 632. Sioux City Term. Ry. Switching 241 I.C.C. 53, 91.

• Intra-Train Switching: Service which includes all the elements of switching performed in taking a car out of a train and replacing it either in the same or another position in that train. Sioux City Switching, 241 I.C.C. 53.
• Inter-Train Switching: Service which includes all the elements of switching performed in taking a car out of a train and placing it in another train of the same carrier at the same station or terminal. Sioux City Switching, 241 I.C.C.53.
• Industrial Switching: The movement of a loaded car from any spur, track, junction, yard, or terminal of a carrier to any spur, track, junction, yard, or terminal of the same carrier. Baltimore Switching Charges, 32 1. C. C. 376. See also Intra-Terminal Switching.
• Interchange Switching: The initial or final movement of a car upon the terminal tracks of one railroad in aid of the road-haul movement over another railroad. Pomeroy Salt Asso. Co. v. H. V. Ry., 42 I.C.C. 627, 629.
• Reciprocal Switching: By reciprocal switching is meant switching to or from a connection with another carrier where that other carrier has a line haul. Rochester Switching Case, 95'1. C. C. 30, 33.
• Secondary Switching. By "secondary" switching is meant that additional switching service sometimes incident to reconsignment within switching limits after a car has been placed for delivery, and the movement of partially loaded cars to other locations for completion of loading or unloading. Boston Wool Trade Asso., v. Director General, 69 I.C.C. 282, 286-287.
• Spotting Service: Defined as the service beyond a reasonably convenient point of interchange between road haul or connecting carrier and industrial plant tracks. Car Spotting Charges, 34 I.C.C. 609, 614. This service and the allowances made in lieu thereof investigated by the Commission in Ex Parte 104 Part II-Terminal Services. See Ex Parte 104 Section for summary of decision. May 21, 1934.
• Yard Switching: Defined (by the Public Service Commission of Maryland) to be the movement of a loaded car from any spur, siding, or track in a yard of any carrier to another spur, siding, or track in the same yard. Baltimore Switching Charges, 32 I.C.C.376.

The present switching limits at Boston of the Boston & Maine, hereinafter termed defendant, are,-for the most part, those defined in Boston Wool Trade Assn. v. Director General, 69 1. C. C. 282, and do not follow the municipal boundaries of the city.

Complainants herein have their yards located in a strictly residential section and are approximately 4 miles from an industrial section. The only industries of any nature in close proximity to complainants' plants are a few greenhouses. The disabilities, if any, that complainants suffer are due without question to their location.

When Charges and Rules Apply
The transportation rates of the carriers apply from the regularly established points for receiving freight from the general public at one station to the regularly established points for the delivery of freight to the general public at another station. Line-haul freight received or delivered at private or assigned sidings within the switching limits of a station is subject to the line-haul switching charges, rules and regulations applicable at the station where the switching service is performed.
Freight received at a point within the switching limits of a station, to be delivered at another point within the switching limits of the same station, is subject to terminal switching charges, rules and regulations applicable at the station where the service is performed. This service is sometimes called "Local Transportation," but a better term is "Terminal Switching," as distinguished from "Line-haul Switching."
Charges for line-haul switching service are not usually made in the following cases:

• (a) At Shipping Point: If car is loaded at a private or assigned siding located on the tracks, and handled in the line-haul service of the same carrier.

• (b) At Destination: If car is placed for unloading at a private or assigned siding located on the tracks of the carrier which handled the car in its line-haul service. Line-haul rates of carriers in this country have been made to include compensation for the delivery and placement of freight upon the tracks of private industries, and if this long-established usage were to be changed and separate charges imposed for the accessorial services which are merely incidental to the line haul, even-handed justice would seem to require that these line-haul rates should be proportionately reduced, and such a change would involve sweeping revisions of many thousands of tariffs. Huron Milling Co. v. P. M. R. R., 49 1. C. C. 558, 560, 561. However, the line-haul rate covers only one placement of the car for loading and unloading, and an additional charge should be made for each additional placement of the car for that purpose. Car Spotting Charges, 34 1. C. C. 609, 618; Virginia Portland Ry. Co., 49 1. C. C. 332, 335.
  Charges for line-haul switching service are generally made in the following cases:
• (a) At Shipping Point: If car is loaded on a private or assigned siding located on the tracks of one carrier for movement from shipping point in the line-haul service of another carrier, the charge being made by the carrier or carriers over whose tracks the car moves from its loading place to the line-haul carrier. However, if the car is destined to a point as to which the line-haul carrier is engaged in competition, for the movement of shipments, with the carrier or carriers performing the switching service, the line-haul carrier usually absorbs the switching charges.
• (b) At Destination: If the car is placed for unloading at a private or assigned siding located on the tracks of some carrier'other than the one in whose line-liaul service it moved into destination. However, if the line-haul carrier is engaged in competition with the carrier on whose tracks the car is placed for unloading, for the movement of shipments from the shipping point to the destination, the carrier in whose line-haul service the car moved into destination will, as a rule, absorb the switching charges.
  And this practice has been upheld by the Commission who in a number of cases has found that the carrier may lawfully absorb switching charges on competitive traffic, and refuse to abosrb such charges on traffic that is not competitive, so long as all shippers similarly situtated are treated alike. Crown Willamette Paper Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 49 1. C. C. 613; Federal Match Corpora- tion v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al, 128 1. C. C. 415. Whether switching charges are reciprocal or not they should be sufficient to insure a proper return for the service performed. Reciprocal Switching Charges, 155 1. C. C. 450. Switching operations should be conducted without a loss, and a carrier is entitled' switching rates which pay operating expenses, plus a proper proportion of taxes and Turn on investment. Sonken-Galamba Corp. v. C. & A. R. R., 181 1. C. C. 229, 248.

Public Team Tracks
Ordinarily a carrier will not permit the loading of cars on its Public Team Tracks (tracks assigned for the use of the general public in loading or unloading carload shipments) when the cars are not to be handled in its line-haul service from the shipping point; nor does a carrier usually permit the unloading on such tracks of cars not brought into the destination in its own line-haul service. The Public Team Tracks of a carrier are tained at the sole expense of the carrier to accommodate patrons of its line-haul When two or naore carriers enter the same station, one cannot have the use and benefit of another carrier's facilities for the accomnaodation of the public in the receipt and delivery of carload shipments, without arranging therefor by special agreement.
And by the same token, carriers generally at localities where connecting lines switch- ing is absorbed, will not absorb such connecting carriers switching charges on traffic loaded or to be unloaded on Public Team Tracks. In the absence of unjust discrimination or undue prejudice the Commission may not require a line-haul carrier to absorb a connection's switching charge. See Switching Charges on Crushed Stone, 186 1. C. C. 322, 327, and cases cited therein. However, see-Interchange Switching at Wichita, 61 1. C. C. 205, where it is stated: A carrier is entitled to reasonable compensation for switching or other services but is not justified in attempting to restrict traffic to its own lines by making an excessive charge for switching to or from its connections.

Less than Carload Freight
The switching charges, rules and regulations of the carriers do not as a rule apply to a single less than carload shipment unless handled upon basis of carload charges. In many cases the carriers will handle a less than carload shipment in switching service only when loaded in one car and on the same day with other less than carload freight from the same consignor or for the same consignee, and then the weight of the shipments combined must not be less than a specified number of pounds, usually 8,000 or 12,000 pounds, depending upon the commodity.

Charges
A carrier is entitled to reasonable compensation for switching to and from connecting lines, but may not restrict traffic to its own line by excessive charges therefor. Roessler and Hasslacher Chemical Co., Inc., v. B. & 0. R. R., 178 1. C. C. 518, 521. Such charges should he sufficient to insure a proper return for services performed Reciprocal Switching at Chicago, 155 1. C. C. 450, Switching at Montgomery, Ala., 213 1. 0. C. 75.
Switching services are usually charged for at so much per car, and the charge includes the switching of the car one way empty. A flat switching charge is generally the most de- sirable, in that it relieves carrier of much work and places all shippers on the same level. See 120 I.C.C. 216. Mitchell Chamber of Commerce v. C., M. & St. P. Ry., 129 I.C.C. 451, 456. When a car is loaded on the tracks of one carrier and switched to and handled in the transportation service of another carrier from the point of shipment, the latter generally issues the bill of lading and pays the former its switching charge. Originating carriers which perform switching services only do not usually issue bills of lading. M.&St.L.R.R. v. P.&P.U.Ry., 69 I.C.C.412.
The switching charge and the transportation charge are collected from the shipper or consignee by the carrier performing the transportation service, unless the switching charge is absorbed in the transportation charge. In the latter event, the shipper or consignee Charges I)ays only the transportation charge. The same principles likewise apply as to a car switched at the destination from the tracks of the carrier performing the transportation service to sidings on the tracks of another carrier at that point. The carrier performing the transportation service usually makes no charge for its own switching service from or to sidings located on its track within the switching limits of a station. Receipt or delivery on private or industrial tracks is merely the equivalent of a similar service on team tracks. Diversion and Reconsignment Rules, 61 1. C. C. 385, 391.
In certain cases the Commission has approved the flat charge on the grounds that it would seem more practical by reducing clerical work, avoiding the expense of weighing cars and preventing any discrimination which might arise from weighing some cars and not others. See Switching at St. Louis and East St. Louis, 120 1. C. C. 216. Considering the relatively short hauls within the Kansas City District, flat charges would be proper for application to complainants' shipments. Greater uniformity would result from the establishment of such charges. Sonken-Salamba Co. v. Chicago & A., 181 I.C.C. 249.

Absorption
At stations reached by two or more carriers, cars are often loaded at private or assigned sidings on the tracks of one carrier and switched to another carrier to be handled in the tatter's transportation service; or, after being handled in the transportation service of one carrier, they are delivered at the destination to another carrier to be switched by the latter to private or assigned sidings located on the latter's track for delivery to the consignees. In such cases any switching done by the carrier performing the transportation service is generally included in the transportation rate, and the charge of the other carrier or its switching service is extra, and is paid by the shipper or consignee, unless the switching tariff of the carrier performing the transportation service, applicable at the station where the switching is done, provides that it will absorb the switching charge of the other carrier.
The switching charge of one carrier is usually absorbed in the transportation charge of another carrier when both carriers are competing for traffic between the points involved. To illustrate: Carriers A and B compete at equal transportation rates for Traffic between Points C and D, as shown in the following illustration: (for diagram see p 381)
Shippers at Point C, having private or assigned sidings on the tracks of Carrier A, would not have to pay switching charges on carload freight loaded at their sidings and forwarded to Point D via Carrier A; but if forwarded via Carrier B, Carrier A would make a charge for switching the car to Carrier B, and this charge would have to be paid by the shipper or the consignee, unless Carrier B has made provision in its tariff that it will absorb the switching charges of Carrier A on cars loaded on private and assigned sidings located on the tracks of Carrier A at Point C and destined to Point D. And Carrier B would be obliged to do this if it desired or expected to handle any of the traffic. Shippers usually seek the cheapest practicable route from one point to another. If a carrier desires to handle competitive traffic, it is usually obliged to do so at competitive rates, unless it has something to offer in the way of special service or facilities to offset higher rates or extra charges.
If a car were loaded on a private or assigned siding on the tracks of Carrier A at Point D and shipped to Point E on Carrier B, as shown in the above illustration, Carrier B would not absorb the charges of Carrier A for switching the car to the tracks of Carrier B, because no competition exists between Carriers A and B in the movement of traffic from Point D to Point E.
Fourth-section order No. 5 authorized the absorption of switching charges by carriers at competitive points while refusing to absorb such charges at noncompetitive stations, even though such absorption resulted in greater charges to more distant points than to intermediate points. Switching and other accessorial charges, 214 I.C.C. 279, 281.
This does not mean the carriers are at liberty carte blanche to absorb or not to absorb connecting line switching according to their individual likes or dislikes. There is always the check of the Interstate Commerce Act which, with respect to any arrangement the carriers may make, operates as an insurance against prejudice, unlawful discrimination and the exaction of unreasonable rates. A case in point is the recent decision of the Commission in I.&S. 3867-Absorption of Switching Charges at Mobile, Ala.-196 I.C.C. 465 wherein the carriers were not permitted to cancel an arrangement whereby the terminal ,switching charges on so-called non-competitive traffic were absorbed. In discussing the facts reference is made to a leading case on the point, i. e., Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. Ry. Co.,44 1. C. C. 455. This was primarily a Section 2 case in which the Commission found that the practice of certain carriers serving- Richmond of absorbing switching charges only when the switching line competed with the line-haul carrier, while refusing to absorb such charges when the switching line did not compete with the line-haul carrier, constituted unjust discrimination under Section 2 when switching service performed was substantially similar. This decision was sustained in S. A. L. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 249 Fed. 368 and affirmed by the U. S. Supreme Court, 254 U. S. 57. Similar decision rendered with respect to switching at Grand Rapids, Mich. National Spring W. Co. v. Director General, etc., 60 1. C. C. 564. The principle established by this case was followed in another case worthy of note; namely, Norfolk-Portsmouth Freight Traffic Commission v. Aberdeen & R. R. R. Co., 159 1. C. C. 177. In this case the Commission found:

That defendants' practice of absorbing switching charges at Norfolk-Portsmouth only when the switching line actually competes with the line-haul carrier on traffic moving between Norfolk-Portsmouth and points in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee, and declining to do so when no such competition exists on like traffic moving between the same points, is unjustly discriminatory against shippers in Norfolk-Portsmouth who are required to pay such switching charges.

Reciprocity
The Commission has held that a carrier cannot justify an inequality in interchange- switching service and charges on the ground of a difference in the degree of reciprocity as between the carriers involved. Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 29 1. C. C. 114. Affirmed in Pennsylvania Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 351. City of Sheboygan, Wisconsin v. Chicago & North Western Railway Company, 227 1. C. C. 472.
By reciprocal switching is meant switching to or from a connection with another carrier where that other carrier has a line haul. Rochester Switching Case, 95 1. C. C. 30.
Generally the basis of reciprocal switching is the ability of each carrier party to the arrangement to reciprocate in a substantial degree to the other. North Shore Material Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 173 1. C. C. 546. Switching charges such as that which complainant here seeks to have applied to its shipments are made without regard to the cost of the service and, therefore, may not, as defendant contends be an accurate measure of a reasonable charge for a particular switching service. Oakes Co. v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 77 I.C.C.93. Having elected to perform the service, defendant must provide a reasonable charge therefor. Thatcher Mfg. Co. v. Director General, 57 I.C.C. 246.
The Commission has frequently said that railroads should endeavor to conduct their switching operations for other carriers without loss, and the charges for such service based on cost are preferable to nominal charges based on so called reciprocity in service; Nashville Switching, 40 1. C. C. 474; Switching Charges at Texas Points, 197 1. C. C. 513. Des Moines Union Switching, 231 I.C.C.665.
The fact, however, that interchange switching rates are or are not reciprocal, is unimportant, as the so called reciprocal theory of establishing switching charges has been condemned by us in several cases. Reciprocal Switching at Kansas City, 68 I. C.C. 591. Switching at High Point, 203 I.C.C.629.
Reciprocal switching charges are generally made without strict regard to cost of service and sometimes are only nominal. They are based on the ability of each carrier to compen- sate the other in like manner for services rendered, if not at the one place than at another served by the same carriers. North Shore Material Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 173 1. C. C. 543; J. W. Miller Co. v. Chicago, M. St. P. & P. R. Co., 173 1. C. C. 51, 53. Clearly such rates are not a fair measure of the reasonableness of other switching rates. Oakes Co. v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 77 1. C. C. 93. Reciprocity is a factor extraneous to the service and so "indefinite, uncertain, and speculative," as well as variable, that it is not entitled to weight as a reason for differentiating in charges. U. S. War Dept. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 77 1. C. C. 317. Carriers should endeavor to conduct their switch- ing operations for other carriers without loss, and charges for their services based on cost are preferable to nominal charges based on so called reciprocity in service. Switching at Galesburg, Ill., 31 I.C.C. 294; Nashville Switching, 40 1. C. C. 474; Switching Charges at Texas Points, 197 I.C.C. 513, 530; Reciprocal Switching at Richmond, Va., 222 I.C.C. 783.

Discrimination
Reverting to the example shown under the caption of "Absorption," it seems, on the surface, that Carrier B discriminates against shippers having sidings on the tracks of Carrier A at Point D through its practice of not absorbing the switching charges on their shipments to Point E, while at the same time making no charge for switching shipments loaded at sidings on its own tracks at Point D and destined to Point E. But the fairness of this practice becomes apparent when it is pointed out that this free switching service it one of the inducements which a carrier offers to have industries locate on its tracks. And this is a very attractive inducement, especially when the carrier serves a large territory. Furthermore, any advantage which the shipper located on the tracks of Carrier B has in not having to pay switching charges on shipments routed via Carrier B is very likely offset by the advantage which the shipper located on the tracks of Carrier A has in not having to pay switching charges on shipments routed via Carrier A.
The practice of a carrier in absorbing the switching charges of another carrier is greatly advantageous to shippers, -because two routes thus become available at the same rates.
" We have in a number of cases found that carriers may lawfully absorb switching charges on competitive traffic, and refuse to absorb such charges on traffic that is not competitive, so long as all shippers similarly situated are treated alike." Crown Willamette Paper Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 49 I. C. C. 613; Detroit Board of Trade v. W. Ry. Co., 88 I.C.C. 413; Federal Match Corporation v. Great Northern Ry. Co. et al, 128 I.C.C. 415.
The charge maintained for the same or similar services in the surrounding territory is generally the best yardstick for measuring the charge, and is often the determining factor. A flat charge throughout a district is generally preferable. Boston Wool Trade Asso. v. Director General, 69 1. C. C. 282, 301; Switching at St. Louis and East St. Louis, Mo., 120 1. C. C. 216, 222; Mitchell Chamber of Commerce v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 129 C. C. 451; Fitchburg, G. & E. L. Co. v. B. & M. R. R., 164 1. C. C. 487.
In Detroit Board of Trade v. W. Ry. Co., 88 1. C. C. 413, the Commission found that the carrier's election to absorb the charge for switching to one elevator while at the sametime refusing to absorb it in like amount to others similarly situated at Detroit, Mich., resulted in unjust discrimination and undue prejudice in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Act. General Petroleum Corp' v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 146 1. C. C. 194. Globe Grain & Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 173 1. C. C. 199.
Switching at Charlotte, N. C. Restrictions proposed by Southern R. R. as to limiting the number of industries to and from switching would be performed, justified. 183 1. C. C. 651. 1. & S. Docket No. 3867, proposed cancellation of the absorption of switching charges of the Terminal Ry., Alabama State Docks at Mobile, Ala., on imported fertilizer and materials destined to non-competitive points, found not justified, 196 1. C. C. 465.
It does not appear that any of these other commodities are competitive with crushed stone, and in certain circumstances switching charges may lawfully be absorbed on some commodities and not on others. Globe Grain & Milling Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 173 1. C. C. 193; Switching Stone at Greencastle, 208 1. C. C. 185.
Establishing increase switching charge for one carrier's traffic while lower charges are concurrently maintained for similar switching service performed for other carriers would result in unjust discrimination and undue prejudice. Louisville & N. v. Cincinnati N. 0. -1-. 11., 2(ii 1. 0. 0. 2'5, Reciprocal Switching at Birmingham, Ala., 219 1. 0. 0. 581.
In Docket No. 27938 Minneapolis Traffic Ass'n v. Chicago & N. W., 241 I.C. C. 207 (July, 1940) carrier's practice of adding switching charges of connecting lines to line-haul rates on grain and products and non-absorption of switching charges when carriers do not compete with line-haul carriers, that carriers be required to absorb switching charge on all shipments at Twin Cities, Duluth, and Superior in like manner they do at Milwaukee, Chicago, Peoria, etc., considered and the Commission said: Rules and practices governing the absorption of connecting-line switching charges will be unreasonable v,o the extent that they result in aggregate transportation charges which exceed, or may exceed, charges based upon line-haul rates from and to the same points which resulted from the Commission's decision in Grain and Grain Products, 205 1. C. C. 301, 215 1. C. C. 83; 223 1. C. C. 235; 229 1. C. C. 9; plus the general increases of 1937-38, but without the addition of connecting-line switching charges. On reopening in 245 1. C. C. 11 (March, 1941) commission made more specific findings but in the main reaffirmed 241 I. C. C. 207.

Reasonableness of Charges
The Commission has rendered some important decisions with respect to the absorption and establishment of switching services and charges, among which are the following:
In a proceeding to determine the propriety of switching charges it is immaterial whether such charges are absorbed by the carrier or paid for by the shippers. They are considered as though they were to be charged for by the carrier and paid for by the shipper. True, the carrier is entitled to make a charge for its service if it sees fit, but it is entitled only to a reasonable compensation for the service performed. Its charge may not be so high as to restrict or deter a particular movement. Switching Absorptions, 47 1. C. C., 583; Detroit Switching Charges, 28 1. C. C., 94; Interchange Switching at Wichita, 61 1. C. C., 205; Mitchell v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 129 1. C. C., 455; Reciprocal Switching at Evansville, 155 1. C., C., 450.
So far as the shipping public is concerned, the effect of a switching absorption is to establish a joint rate. Southern Roads Co. v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 140 1. C. C., 413. The burden, therefore, is upon respondents to justify the increased charge to the shipper which would result under the suspended schedules. Absorption of Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railway Company's Reciprocal Switching Charges at Evansville, Ind., 153 1. C. C. 595. Switching Grain in St. Louis District 232 1. C. C. 450.
Defendant may be required to switch the traffic here under consideration at a charge which takes into account the cost of the service, the value of the property used, and the circumstance that defendant would be deprived of the line haul. See Switching Absorptions, 47 1. C. C., 583; Hastings Commercial Club v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 107 1. C. C., 208, and Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce v. T. & F. S. Ry. Co., 136 1. C. C., 597.
Switching charges are based largely on average conditions within switching districts, and not the cost of any particular service. A charge which may seem excessive for some particular movement within a district may not, on the other hand, cover the cost of the service in others. The question to determine is whether the charge is adequate for serving the district as a whole. Rochester Switching Case, 95 1. C. C. 30, 45.
These increased charges are proposed not for the purpose of obtaining the small amount of additional revenue which would probably result if they became effective, but for the avowed purpose of discouraging, through the medium of what amounts to a penalty charge, the use in switching service of special equipment, and thus to increase the availability of such equipment for line-haul service. The charge is urged by respondents as necessary in the interest of the conservation of their equipment. The right to impose reasonable charges for such a purpose is clear The efficient use of freight cars is an essential of an adequate transportation system, Turner Lumber Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry., 271 U. S. 259. But this object should not be accomplished through the medium of an unreasonable penalty charge, or of a penalty which in its operation affects unjustly certain shippers. Switching charges at Seattle, Tacoma and Portland,, I. & S. Docket 3357, 165, 1. C. C. 22.
Switching at Natchez, Miss., 181 1. C. C. 171, proposed increases not permitted. Terminal Refrigerating Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 181 I.C.C. 441, Trunk Line required to absorb switching charge on non- competitive interstate shipments at Los Angeles. Union Gas & Electric Co. v. L. & N. R. R., 181 1. C. C. 75.6, local switching charges L. & N. R. R. in the Cincinnati, Ohio, Covington and Newport, Ky. districts ordered in 176 1. C. C. 205, affirmed. 1. & S. Docket No. 3565, increase in asphaltum and petroleum rates in the Cincinnati-Covington switching district found not justified. 182 1. C. C. 151.
Flanley Grain Co. v. C. & N. W. R. R., carriers not required to pay terminal switching charges at Sioux City, Iowa, 192 1. C. C. 505, and the Commission further stated the following: "We are not persuaded that the mere failure to absorb switching charges at Sioux City, whereas switching charges of a somewhat similar nature were absorbed at other points, in the absence of any showing as to the services performed or the actual transportation involved on shipments moving through the respective points, is sufficient to establish the unreasonableness of the charges assessed. Dodge County Lumber Co. V. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 146 I.C.C. 221. In many cases we have stated that in the absence of unjust discrimination or undue prejudice we cannot require a line-haul carrier to absorb a connection's switching charge. See Switching Charges on Crushed Stone, 186 I.C.C. 322, Absorption of Switching at Butte, Mont., 204 1. C. C. 11, and Standard Packing Co. v. South Omaha Term. Ry., 229 1. C. C. 479.
I.&S. Docket No. 3856, proposed increased switching charges at Fort Wayne, Ind., on the part of the Lake Erie & Ft. Wayne R. R., found not justified, 195 1. C. C. 739, and in this case without actual cost studies. The proposed inefftm to $9.00 per car was denied but based on evidence an inereme from $3.60 to $5.60 was in order.
Charges for switching should be sufficient to insure a proper return for the services performed; Reciprocal Switching Charges, 155 1. C. C. 450; Switching Charges at Texas Points, 197 1. C. C. 513.
Under average conditions the services rendered by respondents in connection with this water-born traffic involve a much greater amount of labor and expense than does line-haul transportation. In Blackmer & Post Pipe Co. v. Wabash Ry. Co., 161 1. C. C 74, and Switching Fruit and Vegetables at Baltimore, 201 1. C. C. 697 the Commission said:
As distance is not necessarily a controlling factor in switching costs, the time consumed in rendering the service being more important, it is impracticable to reflect the same refinements of rate making in switch ing rates as in line-haul rates. Switching at St. Louis and East St. Louis, 120 1. C. C. 216. 222.
The Commission has said that in determining the measure of a switching charge consideration may be given to the cost of the service, the value of the property used, and the circumstances that the switching carrier will be deprived of the line haul. That interterminal switching charges should be somewhat higher than those for corresponding reciprocal switching. Switching at Kansas City, Mo.-Rans. and Related Pointe 1. & S. Docket No. 3495Y 178 1. C. C. 97.

see: The Freight Traffic Rebook, 1944, p.377- p385.  Article continues to p392.