State as of June 30th, 1903, the work being under the direction of W. D.
Taylor, M. Am. Soc. C. E. The plan adopted, the methods of work, and the
general result of independent studies conducted by Professor Taylor have
been described so fully in various technical papers and reports
elsewhere listed, that a very brief statement of points of difference
between the Michigan and Wisconsin works appears to be all that is
necessary here.
Professor Taylor associated with him for consultation Professor Cooley,
of Michigan, made a careful study of methods used in earlier appraisals,
used the Michigan blank forms as a basis for the preparation of his own,
and thoroughly outlined his general plan and the scope of the
information desired before actually organizing his staff or commencing
work.
In connection with the earlier stages of the work, conferences were held
with the officials of the principal railways of the State, and developed
a thorough understanding and plans for co-operation between the
appraiser and the roads. As a result of these conferences, each large
railway company of the State, acting through its heads of departments,
made an inventory and appraisal of its own property in the State, using
therefor the forms and blanks prepared by the appraiser. At the same
time, the appraiser organized a considerably smaller force than was used
in Michigan, made his own office and field inspection, and secured data
to complete the appraisal on the small roads, in which their own
engineering or operating departments were not organized so as to do the
work according to plan.
The work turned out by the large roads was then checked by this force,
the various points in which they were out of harmony were checked and
unified, a number of hearings were held, certain portions of the work
were checked over by the appraisers' men, sundry changes in quantity and
price were made, and finally, when the work was compiled and put in
shape for presentation, the appraiser had reason to believe that he had
secured a result which was reasonably free from error, and one in which
the railroads had co-operated to such an extent that no charge of
prejudice or unfairness would lie.
It is noted that the average cost of reproduction and the present value
per mile in Wisconsin are higher than in Michigan, which is probably as
it should be, as Michigan has a less mileage of high-class main trunk
line road than Wisconsin.
In general, the two appraisals were very similar. The determination of
unit prices, the placing of depreciation, the apportionment of
locomotives, freight, and passenger equipment, and other rolling stock,
the use of the Interstate Commerce Commission's construction
classification, the application of percentage values for engineering,
interest during construction, administration, legal expenses, and
contingencies (this latter fixed at 5.5%), all were along lines similar
to those developed in Michigan.
The work of the Wisconsin appraisal was carried on at the same time as
the second Michigan appraisal. The investigations made by Mr. Van Ranst
Pond and the writer, as to the actual sale prices of right of way, fully
discussed heretofore, were conducted at the same time as Professor
Taylor's work in Wisconsin was being done, and neither party had any
knowledge of the work of the other. The prior discussion relative to
this phase of the Michigan valuation is practically a revision of a
memorandum submitted by the writer to the Attorney-General in January,
1904. The tables are abstracted from much more extensive ones which,
supported by the evidence of Registers of Deeds of some ten counties of
Michigan, are part of the record of evidence in Michigan Central
Railroad _vs._ Powers. It is, therefore, not only of great interest, but
great value, as supporting Professor Cooley's right-of-way valuations,
to note the following extract[10] from Professor Taylor's discussion of
the paper by Mr. R. A. Thompson on the Texas railroad valuations:
"In the Wisconsin appraisal, the method followed for valuing the right
of way and terminal lands was about as given below. Parts of the right
of way of some of the larger systems are estimated at higher ratios than
this, but in such cases the roads themselves fixed the right-of-way
value.
"The market value for other purposes of the right of way and terminal
lands was judged to be the same as that of contiguous property.
"In farming lands, small towns, and suburban and residence property, the
right-of-way value was taken to be 250% of the market value for other
purposes.
"In city property, the right-of-way value was taken to be 133% of the
market value for other purposes, where the land was owned in strips of
100 ft. width or less, and 110% of the market value for other purposes,
where the land was owned in blocks, or in widths greater than 100 ft."
No effort whatever was made in the Wisconsin valuation to determine any
non-physical or intangible values, the report covering only cost of
reproduction and present value of the physical properties.
The Wisconsin work is noteworthy as the first appraisal in which the
hearty co-operation of the railroads was secured from the outset. In
Michigan the roads at the inception viewed the work with distrust, but
by the completion were in hearty sympathy with the efforts of the
appraiser to use just and honorable methods, and the managements
extended every courtesy in the way of access to records for verification
purposes.
-----
Footnote 10:
_Transactions_, Am Soc. C. E., Vol. LII. p. 359.
THE MINNESOTA STATE RAILWAY APPRAISAL.
The valuation of railway properties in the State of Minnesota was
undertaken with a view to establishing a basis for rate-making. The work
was in charge of Mr. Dwight C. Morgan, Engineer of the Railroad and
Warehouse Commission of the State, whose full and complete report is a
very valuable addition to the literature of valuation practice. This
work was undertaken after the completion of that in Michigan and
Wisconsin, and advantage was taken of the experiences of the appraisers
in these two States. The Wisconsin plan of co-operation with the
railroads was adopted, and each company scheduled and appraised its own
lines.
The "cost of reproduction," and "present value of physical properties"
were the two sets of figures shown in the final results.
Unit prices were fixed on the basis of current prices in 1905, in
preference to an average of 5 or 10 years.
Apportionment of locomotives and rolling stock was made on an engine-
and car-mileage basis. The organization of an office force was
undertaken, and special study was made of the subjects of unit prices
and the various local conditions surrounding the different properties,
checking of quantities of earthwork, rails, etc., and preparing to
harmonize and unify the estimates as they should be received from the
railroads.
The greatest difference between this work and that in the other States
was the fact that the field inspection, instead of being made by many
men, was made by Appraiser Morgan, accompanied by two assistants,
inspection being made in a special train, which was paid for by the
State.
The detailed reports of the railroad companies were completed and in the
hands of the appraiser, maps and profiles of the road were prepared and
available, the train was run at slow speed, and many stops were made for
examination of bridges, culverts, and structures. About 100 miles per
day were covered, but this did not include the larger terminals of St.
Paul, Minneapolis, and Duluth, which were given many days.
In the preparation of final summaries, percentage values were placed as
follows:
Engineering, superintendence, and legal 4½ per cent.
Contingencies 5 " "
Interest, time of construction varying according to 4 " "
mileage from 1 to 8 years
In addition to these three items, the item of "adaptation and
solidification of roadbed" was given a large place, being, for all the
roads of the State, $11,743,007.15. This feature was novel to this class
of valuation, and it is to be regretted that, in his report, the
appraiser did not narrate more fully the detailed methods by which he
arrived at his resultant figure.
_Land Valuation._—The vexed question of a proper value to give to lands
owned by a railway company, was treated by Appraiser Morgan in a
different way than it had been in Wisconsin or Michigan. A number of
special agents were appointed, who made an exhaustive study of the
transfers and assessed values throughout the State. The discussion of
this subject in Mr. Morgan's report is exhaustive, and of great
interest. The conclusions are quoted. It is regretted that the
discussion of methods of valuation can only be given in brief form.
"Careful and full consideration of all information made available for
establishing the value of the right of way owned and used by the railway
companies for railway purposes, led to the conclusion that in the state
at large exclusive of the three terminals of St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Duluth, a multiple of three (3) applied to the true value or normal
value of lands, as obtained from the transfers, would in general satisfy
the conditions.
"During the period referred to, the railway companies paid for the
property acquired by them, over and above its normal value, an amount
sufficient to justify the use of the following multiples: St. Paul, one
and three-fourths (1¾); Minneapolis, one and three-fifths (1⅗), and
Duluth, one and one-fourth (1¼), which when applied to the normal value
of the lands as established from contiguous and surrounding property,
formed the basis for measuring the cost of reproducing the existing
terminals of the railway companies."
In the final compilation of results, two sets of schedules were
rendered:
(_a_) Those which gave the land values with added increment,
(_b_) Those which omitted the increment.
The cost of the engineering work was about $70,000; this covered 7,596.4
miles of main track, 427.4 miles of second track, and 2,414 miles of
side-track, or a total of 10,437.8 miles of all tracks. As yet there has
been no decision by the Courts on the Minnesota rate cases.
_Forms Used in the Compilation of Information._—The forms used in the
Michigan appraisal have been described and fully illustrated. They were
all printed on 8½ by 11-in. sheets.
The Wisconsin appraisal used the Michigan forms as a basis, twenty of
them being practically identical with the corresponding Michigan forms.
The forms shown by Figs. 11 to 21 are materially different from those
used in Michigan.
The forms used in Minnesota in 1906 were based on those of Michigan and
Wisconsin, and were printed on 14 by 18½-in. sheets. They were remodeled
and elaborated to such an extent, however, that the writer believes
himself justified in submitting reproductions of the entire set, as
representing the most complete form for inventory yet used on any of the
State appraisals.
The appraiser in Nebraska in 1909, and Mr. Hansel in New Jersey in 1910,
have both returned to the 8½ by 11-in. sheets, and, while both clearly
followed earlier precedent in general, both have modified the details to
suit the requirements in their respective States.
THE WASHINGTON STATE APPRAISAL.
The State of Washington, through its Railroad Commissioners, made an
appraisal of railroad properties within its borders, the work being
under the direction of Halbert P. Gillette, M. Am. Soc. C. E.
[Illustration: FIG. 11.]
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 1 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ ROADBED REPORT _________________│
│ _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ PART I Date ______ 190__│
╒════════╤════════╤═════════════════╤═════════════════════
│LOCATION│ ACRES │TOTAL EXCAVATION │ TIES
│ │ │ AND EMBANKMENT │
├────────┼────────┼─────┬─────┬─────┼──────┬────┬─────────
│ │Clearing│Earth│Loose│Solid│Number│Kind│Condition
│ │ and │ cu. │Rock │Rock │ │ │
│ │Grubbing│yds. │ cu. │ cu. │ │ │
│ │ │ │yds. │yds. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼────┼─────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────┼────────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼──────┼────┼─────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤════════════════╤═══════════════════════╕
│ BALLAST │ RAILS │
│ │ │
┼──────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬─────────┤
│ Kind │Condition│Length│Weight│Condition│
│ and │ │ of │ │ │
│Amount│ │Single│ │ │
│ │ │Track │ │ │
│ │ │in ft.│ │ │
┼──────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │
┼──────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 2 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ ROADBED REPORT _________________│
│ _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ PART II Date ______ 190__│
╒════════╤═════════════════════╤═══════════════════════
│LOCATION│TIE PLATES AND BRACES│ FASTENINGS
├────────┼──────┬────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬─────────
│ │Number│Kind│Condition│Number│Weight│Condition
│ │ │ │ │ │ per │
│ │ │ │ │ │ foot │
├────────┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤═════════════════════╤═══════════════════════╕
│ FROGS AND SWITCHES │ R.R. CROSSINGS │
┼──────┬────┬─────────┼──────┬──────┬─────────┤
│Number│Kind│Condition│Number│ Rail │Condition│
│ │ │ │ │Weight│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼──────┼────┼─────────┼──────┼──────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 6 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ SIGNAL APPARATUS _________________│
│ _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│
╒════╤═══════════╤══════════════╤═══════════╤═══════╤════════════╤════╕
│ │ LOCATION │ NAME AND │ No. Miles │ Cost │ Condition │ │
│ │ │ DESCRIPTION │Single Line│ New │ Per Cent │ │
├────┼───────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────┼───────────┼──────────────┼───────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 8 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ MISCELLANEOUS _________________│
│ _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ ROADWAY ITEMS Date ______ 190__│
╒═══╤════════╤═══════════════════╤═════════╤═════════════════════╤════╕
│ │LOCATION│Sets Section Tools,│Condition│ CROSSING PROTECTION │ │
│ │ │ Hand Cars, etc. │Per Cent │ │ │
├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┬──────┬─────────┼────┤
│ │ │ │ │Kind│Amount│Condition│ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │Per Cent │ │
├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┼──────┼─────────┼────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├───┼────────┼───────────────────┼─────────┼────┼──────┼─────────┼────┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
[Illustration: FIG. 12.]
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 9 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ TELEGRAPH, INSTRUMENTS AND _________________│
│ STATION EQUIPMENT _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│
╒═╤═════╤═══════╤════╤═════════╤════════════════╤═════════╤════╤═
│ │OWNER│ LINE │KEYS│SOUNDINGS│ RELAYS │Repeaters│Cut │
│ │ │BETWEEN│ │ │ │ │Outs│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┬───┬────┼─────────┼────┼─
│ │ │ │ │ │Western│Box│Key │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ Union │ │ on │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │base│ │ │
├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┼───┼────┼─────────┼────┼─
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼─────┼───────┼────┼─────────┼───────┼───┼────┼─────────┼────┼─
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤═══════════════╤═══════╤═══════╤═════════╤═════════╤═╕
│ SWITCH BOARDS │Number │Make of│ Length │Condition│ │
│ │ of │Battery│Telegraph│Per Cent │ │
│ │Battery│ │ or │ │ │
│ │ Cells │ │Telephone│ │ │
│ │ │ │ Lines │ │ │
┼──────┬──────┬─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤
│Number│Number│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ of │ of │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Straps│Boards│ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼──────┼──────┼─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼──────┼──────┼─┼───────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 38 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ FENCES, CATTLE GUARDS AND _________________│
│ HIGHWAY CROSSINGS _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│
╒═╤════════╤══════╤═══════╤═════╤═════╤═════╤═════╤═════════╤══════
│ │LOCATION│ Wire │Length │ No. │Size │ No. │Size │Condition│ Kind
│ │ │ or │ of │Posts│ of │Plank│ of │Per Cent │ of
│ │ │Wooden│ Fence │ Per │Posts│ or │Plank│ │Cattle
│ │ │Fence │(Single│Mile │ │Wire │ or │ │Guard
│ │ │ │ Line) │ │ │ Per │Wire │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │Mile │ │ │
├─┼────────┼──────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼──────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤═════════╤════════╤═════════╕
│Condition│Ft. B.M.│Condition│
│Per Cent │Crossing│Per Cent │
│ │ Plank │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │
┼─────────┼────────┼─────────┤
│ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│WISCONSIN RAILROAD W.B.A. Form 42 __________________│
│APPRAISAL OF 190__ _Office Inspector_│
│Name of Road ____ TIMBER TRESTLES AND OPENINGS _________________│
│ _Field Inspector_│
│Between __ and __ Date ______ 190__│
╒═╤════════╤════════════════════╤═══════╤═════╤═══════════╤═════════╤═╕
│ │LOCATION│ DESCRIPTION │Average│ No. │ Average │Condition│ │
│ │ │ Total Length; Pile │Height │Piles│Penetration│Per Cent │ │
│ │ │ or Frame; Number │ Top │ Per │ of Piles │ │ │
│ │ │ Stringers; B.M. │Ground │Bent │ │ │ │
│ │ │ Framing; Per Lin. │To Base│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ Ft., Etc. │ Rail │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼────────────────────┼───────┼─────┼───────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼────────────────────┼───────┼─────┼───────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
[Illustration: FIG. 13.]
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Name of Operating Form 21 _________________│
│Company __________ _Field Inspector_│
│Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│
│From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│
│ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │
│ DOCKS AND WHARVES │
│ With or Without Coal or Ore Handling Equipment │
╒═╤═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
│ │ DOCKS AND WHARVES
│ │
│ │
├─┼────────┬────┬──────────┬──────┬───────┬────────┬───────┬────────
│ │LOCATION│Item│Dimensions│Piles │Framing│Platform│Masonry│Concrete
│ │ │ │ │Lineal│ B.M. │ B.M. │ Cubic │ Cubic
│ │ │ │ │ Feet │ Feet │ Feet │ Yards │ Yards
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
══════════════════════╤══════════════════════════════════════════════
│ SUPERSTRUCTURE FOR HANDLING COAL OR ORE
│
│
┬───────┬───┬─────────┼────┬──────────┬──────┬───────┬────────┬──────
│Filling│Age│Condition│Type│Dimensions│Timber│Number │Capacity│Number
│ Cubic │ │Per Cent │ │ │ B.M. │ of │ of │ of
│ Yards │ │ │ │ │ Feet │Pockets│Pockets │Hoists
│ Earth │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Stone │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼───────┼───┼─────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼───────┼───┼─────────┼────┼──────────┼──────┼───────┼────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
════╤════════════╤═════════╤═╕
│ COMPLETE │ Average │ │
│ PLANT │Condition│ │
│ │Per Cent │ │
┬───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤
│Age│ Cost of │ │ │
│ │Reproduction│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
┼───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │
┼───┼────────────┼─────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Name of Operating Form 22 _________________│
│Company __________ _Field Inspector_│
│Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│
│From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│
│ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │
│ INTERLOCKING PLANTS │
╒═╤════════╤═══════╤═════╤═════════════════════╤═══════
│ │LOCATION│Name of│When │ TOWER HOUSE │Kind of
│ │ │Railway│Built│ │Machine
│ │ │Crossed│ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┬──────────┬─────┼───────
│ │ │ │ │Kind│Dimensions│Cond.│
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Per │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ Ct. │
├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┼──────────┼─────┼───────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
├─┼────────┼───────┼─────┼────┼──────────┼─────┼───────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤════════════════╤════════════════════════╤════════════╤══════════
│NUMBER OF LEVERS│KIND OF CONNECTION PIPE │Foundations,│ SIGNAL
│ │ OR WIRE TO │ Wood or │ POSTS
│ │ │ Concrete │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
┼────┬─────┬─────┼───────┬────────┬───────┼────────────┼────┬─────
│Work│Spare│Total│Derails│Switches│Signals│ │High│Dwarf
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┼─────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼────┼─────┼─────┼───────┼────────┼───────┼────────────┼────┼─────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤════════════════════════╤════════╤═════════╤════════════╤═══════════
│ NUMBER OF FUNCTIONS │ELECTRIC│ Average │Per Cent of │Per Cent of
│ OPERATED │CIRCUIT │Condition│Construction│Maintenance
│ │ FOR │Per Cent │Cost Paid By│ Cost Paid
│ │ │ │This Company│ By This
│ │ │ │ │ Company
│ │ │ │ │
┼───────┬────────┬───────┼──┬──┬──┼─────────┼────────────┼───────────
│Derails│Switches│Signals│ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──┼──┼──┼─────────┼────────────┼───────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼───────┼────────┼───────┼──┼──┼──┼─────────┼────────────┼───────────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤═════════╤════════════╤═╕
│Per Cent │ Cost of │ │
│ of │Reproduction│ │
│Operating│ │ │
│Cost Paid│ │ │
│ By This │ │ │
│ Company │ │ │
┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │
┼─────────┼────────────┼─┤
│ │ │ │
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│Name of Operating Form 23 _________________│
│Company __________ _Field Inspector_│
│Section Number ______ MINNESOTA RAILROAD & _________________│
│From ______ To ______ WAREHOUSE COMMISSION _Office Compiler_│
│ RAILROAD APPRAISAL OF 1906 │
│ SIGNAL APPARATUS │
╒════════╤════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
│LOCATION│ TRAIN ORDER AND MANUAL BLOCK SIGNALS OPERATED IN
│ │ CONJUNCTION WITH THE TELEGRAPH
├────────┼──────┬────────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬──────
│ │ Type │Manufactured│ Number │Condition│Miles of │ Type
│ │ of │ by │Installed│Per Cent │ Single │ of
│ │Signal│ │ │ │ Line │Signal
│ │ │ │ │ │Protected│
├────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
├────────┼──────┼────────────┼─────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
╤═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
│ AUTOMATIC BLOCK SIGNALS
│
┼────────────┬─────────┬──────────┬────────┬─────────┬─────────┬──────
│Manufactured│ Number │ Number │Circuit │Miles of │Condition│ Type
│ by │Installed│ Switch │Track or│ Single │Per Cent │ of
│ │ │Indicators│ Wire │ Line │ │Signal
│ │ │ │ │Protected│ │
┼────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │
┼────────────┼─────────┼──────────┼────────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────
│ │ │ │ │ │ │