« AnteriorContinuar »
EXHIBIT No. 14
General balance sheet, Dec. 31, 1964
$4, 223, 827 1, 990, 681
427, 904 3, 125, 738 2, 913, 158
847, 609 2, 167, 161
370, 952 4, 590, 862
721 Investments in affiliated companies..
19, 577, 559 6, 945, 803
(6, 633, 284)
735 Accrued depreciation-Road and equipment--
(142, 473, 511)
(7, 394, 217)
Total transporation property less depreciation and
amortization.737 Miscellaneous physical property-.
313, 591, 787 28, 039, 472
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY, DEC. 31, 1964
Current liabilities :
752 Traffic and car-Service balances—credit.
$4, 995, 549 2, 957, 852 1,971, 376 284, 878
200, 088 14, 577, 122
196, 897 1,028, 912 2, 817, 257
29, 047, 991
Total current liabilities (exclusive of long-term debt
due within 1 year) Long-term debt due within 1 year: 764 Equipment obligations
and other debt..
3, 711, 422
Shareholders' equity :
Common—no par–539,688 shares..
Preferred-$100 par—491,024 shares.
Common—no par—534,182 shares-
53, 889, 941 49, 102, 400
53, 418, 200
156, 462, 141
Capital surplus : 795 Paid-in surplus--
(70, 456, 057)
Total shareholders' equity--
86, 007, 584
Total liabilities and shareholders' equity-NOTE.-Figures in parenthesis indicate debit.
394, 052, 070
Senator LAUSCHE. What do you mean that it has had one of the least passenger operating ratios in the country?
Mr. Kirk. If you will relate operating expenses attributable to passenger revenues, in other words, divide up passenger operating expenses by passenger revenues, you get a ratio. That is the ratio I have reference to. It is one of the least in the country, which I believe belies any statement that the passenger service on the New Haven Railroad is operating inefficiently.
Senator PASTORE. Mr. Kirk, you said that you reached an agreement with the Massachusetts authorities, which is of course, a very encouraging and refreshing thing. As a matter of practicality and as a matter of record, how were you able to segregate the costs that were involved with reference to that segment from the entire system?
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to that problem because it is important to the trustees in their reorganization efforts. I think I would like to go back a little bit in saying that in any segregation of costs, there is room for differences of opinion. And one group will espouse one procedure and one another, and no one can say that either or both are wrong. This is a matter, I believe, of negotiation.
Well, the problem is a little bit more simple in the case of the commuter service in Boston, by virtue of the fact that service is largely carried out on branch lines where the costs can be more readily determined. You do have a much more complicated problem which, in my own thinking, leads to all sorts of delays, arguments, disagreements, and so forth with respect to the balance of service.
For instance, take our long-line service, a passenger leaves Boston for New York. A passenger boards that train in Providence for New York. How can that cost of each one of those passengers be properly segregated? Isn't this a problem for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut together, rather than separately? For instance, does the cost involved in the operation of the South Station, properly apply to the passenger who boards the train at Providence by the virtue of the fact that train had to start from Boston ?
Let's look at a little more complicated situation. Let's look at West End commuter service, by that I mean the commuter service in and out of Grand Central Station in New York. There we have four tracks operating. Now for the through service, with properly controlled traffic and signaling, I believe that the through service could be handled by one track but we have four. Why? Because in the rush hours in the morning we need three tracks for the commuter service and in the rush hours in the evening we need three tracks for the commuter service.
Senator PASTORE. Do you have a separate engine on those others, I mean that just runs that route?
Mr. KIRK. Yes, sir. What I am asking is, How is it possible to technically have everyone agree as to the proper allocation of those costs as between the through service and the commuter service? It can be done by negotiation.
Senator PASTORE. That is right. In other words, it is feasible. It won't ever be precise, it won't ever be accurate to the opinion of all, but you can reach a common ground of understanding.
Mr. KIRK. Right. What I am getting at here is, while you can talk about the various types and kinds of passenger service we operate, we