In May 1889, Illinois Central began consideration of a new station to be constructed in "South Memphis", located in the area of Main and Calhoun streets on the site of the former Mississippi and Tennessee station. Solicitations were made to other Memphis railroads, in an effort to secure additional tenants, but the terms of occupancy and the location were seen as somewhat unfavorable by most of the other Memphis roads. At this time, IC's only entry into Memphis was from the south, over the former Mississippi & Tennessee line from Grenada, Mississippi.
A conference of executives representing all of the Memphis railroads was convened in October 1889, and it was agreed that a union station should be created. Mr. George H. Nettleton, president of the Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad and the Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad was asked to investigate locations and options on behalf of the committee. In a subsequent meeting on February 25, 1890, the most desirable location was identified as being the area bounded by Calhoun street, Rayburn avenue, Georgia street and Lea street. The members of the conference gave Nettleton the authority to negotiate for the purchase of the land. Railroads participating included L&N, StLIM&S, LNO&T, M&C, IC, KCFtS&M and KCM&B. In order that land acquisition be completed before the endeavor became public (to better allow land acquisition at bargain prices), each road agreed to pay one-seventh of the sums required as land parcels were secured. C.P Huntington, president of the CO&SW, later indicated an interest in participating.
Illinois Central president Stuyvesant Fish surprised the union station committee in May 1890, advising that the IC would not participate in the agreement, and the LNO&T withdrew several months later. In July 1890, the IC began soliciting roads to become tenants in a new IC station to be constructed at Main and Calhoun streets. The delays and vacillation by several other roads discouraged Mr. Nettleton and others, and the union station project was allowed to languish. By July 1891, KCFtS&M and KCM&B had abandoned their station on Broadway east of Main, in favor of becoming a tenant in the IC station (Calhoun Street station) at Main & Calhoun. [This arrangement was short-lived; by 1897 the "Memphis Route" roads were back in the Main at Broadway location, in a joint station with NC&StL.]
In March 1892, discussions were held among some of the Memphis roads about forming a corporation and issuing bonds to pay for a new union station. L&N President M.H. Smith made inquiry to George J. Gould, Vice-President of Missouri Pacific, asking whether it was a reasonable to expect to sell $1,000,000 worth of bonds at or near par, bearing 5% interest. The financing was never perfected and the project was again dropped. Efforts to revive the union station concept continued in early 1893, but the panic of that year and ensuing economic depression lasting almost three years stalled efforts to acquire land for station property. The effort to consolidate Memphis stations suffered another loss on March 26, 1896, with the death of 64-year old George H. Nettleton, the KCM&B president who held a strong interest in the project and who had guided many of the early efforts. Edward S. Washburn assumed the presidency of KCFtS&M and KCM&B after Nettleton's death.
In January 1898, the matter of a Memphis union station was revived, and IC president Stuyvesant Fish again raised the issue of a union depot at Main and Calhoun streets. Calhoun Street station by this time had become surplus to Illinois Central's own needs and was essentially abandoned. Both the NN&MV and the LNO&T had been acquired by the Illinois Central and by 1897-1898 all IC passenger operations had been consolidated into the former NN&MV Poplar Street station. Illinois Central perhaps saw the union station proposal as an opportunity to generate revenue from the idle Calhoun Street station.
On June 18, 1899, a "personal and confidential" letter was sent by L&N President Smith to E. S. Washburn, President & General Manager of the KCFtS&M and KCM&B, and to C.G. Warner, Vice President of Missouri Pacific. In this communication, Smith suggested that it was not going to be possible to negotiate a satisfactory arrangement with the Illinois Central for construction of a union passenger station at Memphis, and that it would also be difficult to design a satisfactory arrangement of approaches if the station was located on Calhoun street between Main and Senatobia. The size and track layout of the idle Calhoun Street station was deemed inadequate for use as a union station, and the terms offered by IC were not considered particularly favorable to tenant roads. As an alternative, Smith suggested that MP-Iron Mountain, KCFtS&M, KCM&B, Southern, NC&StL, and the Choctaw & Memphis [former Memphis & Little Rock] join with L&N in becoming equal stockholders in a new corporation which would acquire property and operate a union station.
With this letter, a proposed agreement for a "Memphis Terminal Company" was enclosed, with terms that each railroad would contract with the terminal company to use the station for a period of 50 years, each company would run all of their trains from the station, each road to pay such proportion of the interest on construction cost, cost of maintenance, insurance, operation, etc., in proportion to the total number of cars operated into the station annually. The terminal company would issue 40-year, 4% gold bonds for the full cost of the property, the interest to be guaranteed by the owning railroads. The site of the station would be the same site selected under the guidance of George Nettleton in February 1890, an area generally east of the existing Calhoun Street station.
It is uncertain whether this "Memphis Terminal Company" was ever actually incorporated. The proposal failed because the KCFtS&M refused to join in the creation of facilities unless the Illinois Central also became a party thereto, and J.T. Harahan of the IC refused to become a party to any arrangement for a stub end station, claiming that the exigencies of traffic made it necessary that their trains run through, thus avoiding the loss of 10 or 15 minutes that might result from entering and leaving a stub-end station.
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad (successor to Choctaw & Memphis) began operating out of Calhoun Street station in December 1899, when through Memphis-Weatherford, Oklahoma passenger service was inaugurated. IC renovated the vacant Calhoun Street station to meet CO&G requirements, and there were some suggestions by other railroads that CO&G had received a more favorable tenant arrangement because IC was anxious to establish good interchange relations with this new, independent western connection.
In answer to the public's desire for a union station, temporary arrangements were subsequently made with the IC to bring additional roads into Calhoun Street station as tenants, much as had been suggested by IC President Fish in January 1898. On April 1, 1901, L&N through trains, as well as trains of the NC&StL and the Memphis Route (KCFtS&M-KCM&B) moved to the Calhoun Street station, which was now being referred to as Union Depot. Southern Railway trains followed on June 5. IC and Y&MV trains made a stop at a loading platform at Calhoun & Senatobia streets, where a walkway connected with Calhoun Street station about ½ block east. In this manner, all Memphis roads with the exception of the Gould roads - Missouri Pacific and Cotton Belt - served a single station. Missouri Pacific VP and GM Russell Harding attempted to reopen the union station issue in December 1902, but was unable to generate interest among the other railroads.
At another meeting of railroads interested in a Memphis Union Station, held in St. Louis on February 7, 1905, the chairman was authorized to pay a civil engineer, Mr. Daniel Breck, a salary of $400/month to secure his evaluation of the various site proposals. Breck's report on four possible sites was received during a June 20, 1905 meeting in St. Louis. "Plan D" was favored by most roads, and an additional expenditure of $10,000 was authorized to obtain land options, formulate articles of incorporation for a terminal company, and further develop options for this site, which was located on the south side of Broadway.
Modifications were submitted to "Plan D" at a St. Louis meeting on March 17, 1906, reducing estimated costs from $6,000,000 to less than $3,000,000. L&N President Smith in a subsequent letter to NC&StL President J.W. Thomas, Jr., stated, "I am not now willing to commit the L&N to bearing its portion of the very large expenditure, the extent of which we have no means of accurately estimating. If we once become involved, the total amount will, I fear, be very large. Nevertheless, if the other railways proceed in the matter, I fear we will in the end be forced to at least become tenants."
In April 1906, it was reported that all but four of the roads serving Memphis had agreed to plans for a new Union Station. Meeting in St. Louis on May 29, 1906, all of the Memphis rail lines except the L&N and the NC&StL agreed to the construction of a through station located on the south side of Broadway, and committed to issuing notes amounting to $1,200,000 in order to acquire the property. The exact location of the station was kept secret, in order to obtain the property before property values inflated. [If title to part of the property could be obtained at reasonable prices, the remaining propoerty could be condemned through eminent domain.] Speculation was rampant regarding the station location, and in October 1906, it was rumored that the new station would be built at Broadway, LaRose, Dadie and Long Avenues.
On January 22, 1907, Illinois Central, L&N, NC&StL and Y&MV signed an agreement covering reciprocal use of trackage in the Memphis area. IC's double track freight bypass from Woodstock through Aulon to south Memphis was then under construction, and the new agreement provided for passenger train only operating rights west from Aulon to the site of the new union depot. By using the bypass from Woodstock to Aulon, then trackage rights over the NC&StL between Aulon and the new union depot, IC would be able to preserve a run-through style of operation when serving the new station, without the need for a time consuming back-up move. This agreement also specified that both Leewood and Aulon crossings were to be IC installation and maintenance responsibilities.
The specifics of this joint track agreement provided that:
It was reported on October 5, 1907, that Walter Harrison of Birmingham, Alabama, had been selected to prepare the final plans for the proposed Union Station of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company. The main station was to be 200 x 300 feet, with a 50-foot platform all around. Express and baggage rooms would each be 50 x 200 feet, with yard space for 440 coaches. According to published plans, about $3,000,000 was to be expended on the passenger station and $2,000,000 on terminal improvements.
Disagreements over the terms of a city ordinance authorizing the union station and granting railroads certain rights regarding occupying, bridging or closing public streets caused a considerable delay to the project. In October 1908, a revised ordinance for building the new union station passed the legislative council, a lower board of the Memphis City Council. It was necessary for the ordinance to be published and for the City Council to approve it, after which time the board of directors for the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company would have 30 days to accept or reject the ordinance.
While details of the ordinance were being perfected, land acquisition around the south Memphis station site continued. About 100 houses had been sold off in 1907 from various lots owned by the company, and condemnation suits were still moving through the courts in October 1908 to secure title to additional land for the terminal and yard tracks. Once the ordinance was finalized and accepted by the terminal company board, MRRT President John H. Watkins indicated that about 100 more small cottages and shacks would be auctioned to be cleared from the property, after which time grading and site preparation could begin.
The Commercial Appeal headlines on January 12, 1909 advised that the terminal company was "Now Ready to Build Depot." This followed a meeting between the chief engineers of the respective railroads, along with W.H. Harrison, chief engineer of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Co. This group went over the proposed blueprints for the train shed and terminal building, and then toured the proposed site. The chief engineers were to return to their various headquarters, confer with their respective presidents, and then return to Memphis in several weeks, hopefully to finalize arrangements.
The regular quarterly meeting of the terminal company was held in St. Louis on January 26, 1909, in the offices of C.R. Gray, vice-president of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway. It was reported that progress had been made in the discussion of the operating agreement outlining the terms by which the trains of each road would enter the new passenger station. Within several days, however, a persistent rumor had surfaced in Memphis railroad circles, to the effect that Southern Railway had withdrawn from the terminal company. Neither the new terminal company president Albert W. Biggs, nor representatives of the Southern in Washington, D.C., would initially confirm or deny the rumor. [Albert W. Biggs had replaced John H. Watkins as MRRT president between October 1908 and January 1909, exact date to be determined.]
On February 1, Southern Railway formally announced their withdrawal from the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company union station project. A statement released to the Commercial Appeal attempted to explain the Southern's decision to withdraw. This announcement essentially confirmed that while the Southern would be interested in using the new depot as a tenant, the company would not underwrite one-tenth of the total cost. It was hoped that the other 9 roads would assume this burden, although President Biggs of the terminal company could not confirm whether that would be the case.
Upon his return from Chicago on February 5, 1909, Memphis Railroad Terminal Company president Biggs stated that the withdrawal of the Southern Railway Company would have no effect whatever in the construction of the terminals already planned by the proprietary lines. It was expected that the work of grading would be started upon a final report of the chief engineers, who were that day meeting in Mempis with W.H. Harrison, chief engineer of the terminal company. All grounds from the Mississippi River bridge to the Broadway connection points were gone over with Harrison, and it was the general impression that with a few slight changes, the present plans for trackage arrangements and the exact location of the depot building would be recommended at the meeting of the officials within a few days. None of the visiting engineers would make a statement after their meeting, except to say that any decisions for possible changes or acceptance would have to come from officials of the lines, who will go thoroughly into the reports at the meeting. The engineers participating were: J.B. Berry, chief engineer for Rock Island Lines; E.F. Mitchell, engineer of construction of the Missouri Pacific; A.S. Baldwin, chief engineer of Illinois Central; M.L. Lynch, chief engineer of the Cotton Belt; M.C. Byers, chief engineer of the Frisco system; Hunter McDonald, chief engineer of the NC&StL; W.H. Courtenay, chief engineer of the L&N, and J.L. Lancaster of the Union Belt Railway.
A much greater obstacle to the grand plan of one passenger station for Memphis surfaced at the February 9, 1909 meeting of the directors of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company. At this meeting, representatives of the Cotton Belt and the L&N stated that it was not right for their roads to pay one-ninth of the operating expenses of the terminal, when they operated less than half the number of trains into Memphis as were operated by the Rock Island-Frisco and Illinois Central. The Cotton Belt expressed no objections to paying a ninth of the total cost of construction of the terminal, because they believed it would be a paying investment within 5 years. The matter was finally settled by revising the operating agreement of the terminal company to allocate operating costs on a pro-rata basis. Southern Railway was not represented at the meeting, but it was stated on good authority that they would use the terminal for all their passenger trains on a rental basis.
The issue of equitably allocating construction costs, operating expenses and operating revenues had been festering under the surface from the time of the formation of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Co. The issue was discussed extensively in the October 11, 1907 MRRT board of directors meeting and again at the March 6, 1908 board meeting, but no agreement was reached. When no consensus could be reached at a third meeting on this topic, held in Louisville on December 1, 1908, it was agreed to submit the question to arbitration. The user lines selected Mr. C.A. Wickersham, president of the A&WP and the WofA, both recognized as being dominated by the L&N. The proprietorship roads chose Mr. Daniel Willard, second VP of the CB&Q, a person never associated with any of the lines entering Memphis. After a great deal of delay, the third arbitrator was decided upon by these two, the selection falling to J.W. Kendrick, second VP of the Santa Fe.
An unofficial groundbreaking for the new union depot took place at 3pm on February 16, 1909. Chief engineer W.H. Harrison, together with James S. Warren of the Business Men's Club, E.B. LeMaster, a prominent real estate broker, and a number of other citizens went to the location at Willoughby street & Iowa Avenue to participate in the work. Albert W. Biggs, president of the terminal company, was not present, and cautioned that this beginning was not an official one. The exact location would not be determined until after soil tests were completed. The location was directly south of the terminal company's tracks near Broadway, but a new alignment was planned by starting from the bend in Broadway so as to give a more direct track into the station. Reportedly thousands of dollars had been invested in real estate in the surrounding district by Eastern and Northern capital, while local speculators had been kept in the dark on the property.
On March 27, 1909 it was reported that work on the new Union Station for Memphis would begin no later than April 10, according to papers and deeds for the property were filed in the office of the city registrar. The Memphis Terminal Company also accepted the franchise offered by the city council. The bond issue to carry into effect the new terminal was to be taken over by American capitalists, the French financiers having withdrawn from the agreement because they were displeased with the franchise offered by the city council. The board of directors of the terminal company were expected to return within a week to confer final approval on all plans. That expectation proved to be highly optimistic.
Behind the scenes, the arbitrators selected to determine interest expense allocations met in Chicago on May 13, 1909. Arbitrators Willard and Kendrick decided in favor of the ownership basis. Arbitrator Wickersham dissented, but rendered no specific decision. The arbitration ruling that the interest on the cost of the property should be apportioned equally among all owners favored the strongly held position of the Illinois Central and Frisco (coincidentally the largest users of the station) and against the position of the L&N and NC&StL. When this ruling was submitted to the L&N finance committee, however, they declined to approve the arrangement. MRRT Directors then met in St. Louis on June 22, 1909, in an attempt to craft a compromise. The expensive approaches to the station were reapportioned so that only the approaches actually used by each road were included in their individual share. This was also unsatisfactory to the L&N. L&N expressed a willingness to proceed with construction, but only if the interest on the cost of the property was apportioned in the same manner as the cost of maintenance, operation, additions taxes, etc., were apportioned -- on the basis of use of the property (volume of cars served annually) by each carrier. L&N noted that this was the same manner in which the IC used numerous other joint facilities at other points, and indeed it was the same arrangement which IC President Stuyvesant Fish himself had advanced when proposing to furnish joint facilities (at Calhoun Street station) back in November 1898. It had become apparent that neither L&N nor IC were willing to compromise any on their strongly held positions.
No further progress was made toward construction of the Union Station, and impatient Memphis civic leaders were enraged and blindsided by a July 6, 1909 announcement that the entire union station project had collapsed. Upon city request, members of the Tennessee Railroad Commission visited Memphis to investigate the condition of the various stations serving Memphis, examining the various depots and taking testimony on their condition. After this informal fact finding trip by commission members, the Memphis City Council forwarded a resolution to the Railroad Commission on July 10. The tone of the resolution left no doubt that Memphis was frustrated and bitter over the delays for a new station.
Comments by Frisco second vice president C.R. Gray in St. Louis on July 11 helped to explain why the terminal project fell apart. The Frisco was willing to enter into an arrangement with the six railroads remaining faithful to the contract to build a union depot in Memphis, regardless of the withdrawal of the other roads. If this were to be done, Mr. Gray insists that the other railroads should not be permitted to have the strategic advantage of putting up small depots nearer downtown. Mr. Gray noted that many of the joint depots in the United States were built under contracts which were substantially similar to the Memphis contract. He also revealed that a final offer to get the L&N to remain in the agreement was made, cutting their share of the interest charges to about $10,000 per annum.
"I find it difficult to improve upon the very impartial and correct statement which was made by President Biggs to the press of Memphis on July 6. The facts are as stated, that the 8 remaining companies have been unable to complete their operating agreement because a radical difference has arisen as to the division between the proprietary roads of the fixed charges which are, in fact, the interest charges upon the bonded debt."
"The southeastern railroads follow a practice of subdivision of these interest charged upon a basis of user. Throughout practically all of the west, northwest and southwest, these charges are divided upon an equal, or ownership basis. The new Kansas City Union Depot is so divided, not withstanding one of the ten lines has only 3% of it use based upon their present business. The New Orleans Terminal Company and the Houston Terminal Company are organized on the same basis."
"This difference of opinion had been debated by the directors of the Memphis Terminal Railroad Company for a long time, without tangible results. Recognizing that each side was emphatic in their positions, a meeting was held in Louisville, at which time the proprietorship lines made a last effort to secure unanimous action by making an effort to recognize both of the contending factions equally. A proposal was made to divide one-half of the interest charges upon a proprietary basis and one-half upon a user basis. This compromise was declined bu the roads championing the user basis. All roads then agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. After selection of the arbitrators, a ruling was ultimately rendered in favor of dividing interest upon an ownership basis."
"Those of us whose hearts have been in this enterprise from its inception were intensely relieved at any determination of this troublesome question, and the Cotton Belt, which was really the most vitally interested in the result, manfully accepted the verdict and executed the agreement. The other lines were preparing to do so when notice was received from the L&N that its finance committee disapproved of the arbitration and its result."
"A meeting was then held in St. Louis and a compromise proposition was framed up, by which the L&N and NC&StL's proportion of interest payments were scaled down to $10,194 per annum, the remaining burden being assumed by the other companies, including the Cotton Belt and the Iron Mountain, who were the smallest users. This proposition was rejected by the finance committee of the L&N and NC&StL, and what was substantially an ultimatum was served upon the remaining lines that the two roads would not go ahead with the enterprise unless the entire interest charges were divided upon a user basis."
"With specific reference to the Rock Island-Frisco lines, we are in favor of a union depot in Memphis and always have been, on account of the public demand, while appreciating to the fullest extent the financial burden which it would impose. We were ready to go ahead with the eight lines, regardless of the result of arbitration, and we are today ready to go ahead with the six lines, if that will meet public approval, and provided the city will accept such as action as a substantial compliance with the union depot ordinance."
"One fact, however, should be given due consideration. In order to make a union depot possible, the railroads selected a location which was further removed from the business center of the city than would have been the case if it had not been deemed an absolute essential that the station must be conveniently accessible to all lines. Therefore, if a proposition for the six remaining lines to go ahead with this enterprise is accepted, the legislative council should not lend its support to any proposal of the defecting roads to build another station at a point which would give them a strategic advantage over those roads which have honestly labored to provide the facility that the city of Memphis so earnestly desired."
In answer to the comments of C.R. Gray, of the Rock Island-Frisco system, L&N President M.H. Smith responded in a full page advertisement in the July 12, 1909 Memphis Commercial Appeal. This lengthy response outlined L&N's position, and portrayed L&N as having been supportive of a Memphis Union Station since the early 1890s. It also revealed that the L&N was displeased with the new station's proposed location south of Broadway, instead preferring the location to be north of Broadway, in a location which was believed to be more convenient to the citizens of Memphis. With regard to the specific issue of the allocation of annual interest payments, L&N President Smith observed that Illinois Central was unyielding that the expense would be divided on an equal basis among all roads holding ownership. In the case of revenue derieved from the station (rental of space for dining rooms, lunch rooms, news stands, etc.), the IC was insistent that this amount be allocated to the owner railroads on the basis of the number of cars each road operated into the station each year. With these arrangements, according to the L&N, the expense of the station was shared equally among all owner roads, regardless of the volume of their usage, while the revenue (which could offset some of the expense) was distributed in a way to favor those roads operating the greatest number of trains into the station.
The L&N also noted that because the Illinois Central and Frisco demanded a run-through station, the costs of approaches to the MRRT station site were excessive, in the range of 300% to 500% of the cost of a stub end station located on the north side of Broadway. IC's desire to maintain a run-through arrangement was perhaps understandable, since that had been their arrangement in Memphis since consolidating operations at Poplar Street Station. Frisco, on the other hand, had not had a run-through station since they had closed their Main & Broadway station in favor of operation into the Calhoun Street station. The only practical way to have a run-through station for both lines, would be to locate the station at the crossing of the IC mainline on Broadway, and that location would present other operational problems.
A committee of civic leaders was hurriedly formed on July 12 to make a final effort to bring the 9 Memphis roads into agreement. This committee was made up of members of the three most powerful commercial organizations Memphis, the Business Men's Club, the Memphis Cotton Exchange and the Memphis Merchants Exchange. At a large meeting of all of these organizations, resolutions were passed condemning the L&N and NC&StL for refusing the abide by the findings of the arbitration committee and hinting at retaliatory actions against these roads and the Southern Railway to prevent them from locating terminals closer to downtown Memphis.
This committee submitted a compromise plan for interest allocation on August 15th, the compromise again attempting to strike a balance between the two interest computation methods which had been at the root of the problem. The Gould roads, Missouri Pacific-Iron Mountain and the Cotton Belt, quickly signaled their willingness to abide by the compromise plan, provided the other roads would also agree. Plans were made to once again have a railroad summit meeting in Memphis to sign agreements so that the union terminal project could proceed. In the meantime, the L&N and NC&StL submitted plans for their own passenger and freight terminals, to front along 300 feet of Webster Avenue near the intersection of Webster and Main. Equally ominous, for those wanting a union terminal for Memphis, was the news that the Illinois Central on August 30 filed their own plans for a separate station to be built at Memphis, remodeling, upgrading and enlarging their Poplar Street station.
The fate of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company union passenger station was decided at a final conference held in Memphis on September 8, 1909. Despite the best efforts of the compromise committee, all of the railroads refused to move from their prior stated positions. Even the presence of Tennessee governor Patterson was not enough to sway the position of the railroads. President Harahan of the IC confirmed his road's plans to renovate the Poplar Street Station, while President Smith of the L&N indicated that his railroad planned to move ahead with depot plans on Webster, and would probably have NC&StL, Cotton Belt, Missouri Pacific, and perhaps Southern as tenants. James S. Davant, chairman of the compromise committee, expressed disappointment but not surprise at the failure of the various railroads to agree. The affairs of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company were to be finished as soon as possible, although it was thought the company might need to remain functional for several years while more than 40 acres of land were sold. It was estimated that the railroads might recover no more than $600,000 of their $1,200,000 investment. President Biggs of the terminal company explained his position as merely acting for the other roads, and said that he could not take any further steps without an agreement among the roads interested in the terminal company. It being clear that the last hope of securing any agreement must be abandoned, the conference was adjourned. Those who were promoting a single Memphis railroad station conceded defeat, and though several other schemes would arise to consolidate stations in future years, none would ever come to fruition.
The Memphis Commercial Appeal, which had long advocated a single union station for Memphis, ran an editorial - In Memoriam - on September 9, 1909, which expressed the disappointment and bitterness toward the railroads which was then prevalent in Memphis.
The citizens union station committee issued their final report on September 10, headlined by the Commercial Appeal as "L&N Killed Union Depot." The conclusion of the report stated that "The committee is unanimously of the opinion that the primary cause of the failure of this agreement rests with the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, through its president, Mr. Smith, in his recommendation to his finance committee that the award of the arbitrators should be rejected."
"The conference developed the fact that although the railroad companies had expended about $1,200,000 on the proposed terminal plans, there was no disposition to curtail future expenditures in such manner as to deprive Memphis of the passenger facilities its importance demands. But, on the contrary, the roads recognize their obligations in this respect, and already plans and sites are being carefully considered with the intention of prompt action."
"A station for five roads on Main and Webster streets, a station on Main and Calhoun for the accommodation of four roads, and the enlargement of the Poplar Avenue station are under consideration, and this committee believes that with such locations secured and liberal allowance made by the railroads for buildings and trackage, the requirements of this community will be fully met and in the judgement of the committee, will result in a satisfactory solution of the union station controversy. There being nothing further for this committee to do, it will with this report consider itself discharged. J.A. Goodwin, George R. James, E. B. LeMaster, F.W. Faxon, S. Tate Pease, George W. Pease, S.B. Love, H.D. Minor, and James S. Davant, Chairman.
Although the allocation of interest charges was blamed as the major factor in the failure of the Memphis Railroad Terminal Company, the extreme dissatisfaction of the L&N with the "south of Broadway" location cannot be discounted. L&N had fought that location early in the MRRT development, but had acquiesced to the majority on the location. Once the MRRT project was abandoned, the L&N moved decisively to help bring about a union station, utilized by 5 roads, which was indeed located north of Broadway on the site originally favored by the L&N. Public announcement of this project was made on September 12, 1909, less than a week after the failure of the MRRT project. The "north of Broadway" station project was indeed completed and was known as Memphis Union Station.