OPINIONS
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
and
QUERIES
THIS " PLATING " PROBLEM.
[5418] Your leader of July 22 re " Plating" and Mr. Lester's letter, of July 29, left me waiting for all the comments I expected to see on August 5. Is everyone holidaymaking?
I imagine there are many who think, as Mr. Lester does, that " plating " should have some relation to the load carried and not to gross weight. I presume that part of the reason for plating at all is to stop price cutting by overloading and to stop overloading to the public danger.
Plating, as proposed, would seem to perpetuate the advantage of the unscrupulous, in that the man who sends an ill-fitted vehicle on the road, who keeps his spare tyre at home, who runs on worn-out tyres, who provides no jack or tools, who skimps on ropes, chains or tarpaulins, or who sends a boy on a man's job, all to save weight, will reap the benefit of being able to squeeze more pay-load into his gross.
The lorry with an unsafe egg-box body will be able to carry more legal weight; what a paradox! The man who seeks to give the better protection of a van body will be at a disadvantage to the hoops and sheet. No doubt there will be many who will lie awake nights, thinking up many more dodges.
I am even inclined to question Mr. Lester's tareweight idea, for one man wishes to carry more fuel than another and drivers dc; not all weigh the same, especially after their half-hour break ! Yet there is still the problem of being able to weigh the loaded machine as a whole.
It is well known that a vehicle collects weight during its life. If we buy a machine to carry 5 tons and weigh 7i tons gross, what are we going to do after a repaint or two and the collection of wet and dirt which cannot be removed? If your vehicle be weighed near the end of a long and dirty run, how will you like being fined for the mud and water you did not want and do not get paid for? Will you be content to carry 4-4* tons to allow for such eventualities when you paid to be able to carry 5 tons?
It seems that a constant gross weight is impossible to achieve; is it any more reasonably possible always to be sure of the weight of the load itself? A little, but'not much. How about the many loads which have to be quoted for by the standard or thousands? Timber and bricks, wet or dry, half and half, are outstanding examples, but I have just had a case where, unknown to the customer, his new crates were each over 10 lb. heavier than the old. He certainly did not like having to reduce the number of crates he could load for his tonnage, and I expect he will find someone who does not mind, to handle his future loads.
When I mention that this 10 lb. meant a 30-cwt. overload the danger may be appreciated. When I mention that this investigation has also brought to light a great discrepancy in the thickness of the glass in his bottles, also in the amount of the liquid loaded in the bottles at different plants, it becomes as clear as mud how one is to know the weight of a load, short of stifling everything by insisting on having every load weighed.
So far as the taX on the load is concerned, it is certainly better than on unladen weight, but it leaves much to be desired. Mr. Lester will probably have in mind that the tax should have some relation to revenue which comes from its use some relation to the use made of the rciad. Surely a tax on fuel is much better? The larger the load the more the fuel used.
Has it ever occurred to Mr. Lester that the present tax and one on load capacity are very nice for the man who can run long distances day and night (do not look too far into the way he sometimes does it), since he is cutting down his overheads per ton-mile without regard to the use he makes of the road? If his tax had some regard to the use he makes of it, then his rates might have some relation to those of, shall I say, " lessenergetic " people. Moreover, it might be remembered that speed, road damage and fuel consumption are closely related; I shall not need to labour that point.
At the other end of the scale, we should not have the local dock collections, etc., which consume so much standing time with no road damage, being so heavily taxed. A fuel tax has the merit of the basis of "pay as you use" instead-of "pay when we catch you." I will leave the recounting of its imperfections to others, because, to echo Mr, Lester, it would be interesting to
hear their views. T. A. McDowsu..
London, S.E.5. For The P.D.Q. Transport.
ARE LOADING TRAYS PART OF LADEN WEIGHT?
154191 We noticed that in The Commercial Motor of June 17, on pages 634 and 635, you give some very good drawings of "Right bodies for Special Loads." There is one particular body that has attracted our attention, namely, the one showing how track units, composed of sliding trays, can be let into a vat' interior.
Can you tell us if these trays would be considered part of the body when considering the unladen weight of the body for taxation purposes, as we are having quite a lot of trouble in this town, where everything possible is considered part of the unladen weight of the body, thus raising the taxation herever possible.
We should be glad, las readers for many years of your publication, if you ould give us an answer to this
question. C.W. Halifax.
[We consider that the sliding trays which can be let into the van interior sholid not he considered as part of the unladen weight, but as containers, because they can be run info and out of the vehicle complete with their loads. They are really more ip the nature of a means for packing. This is, of course, cur own interpretation of the law. It depends on how th magistrates treat any case brought up before them.--En 1
THE HAULAGE OF ROUND TIMBER.
[5420J I am interested in the haulage of round timber and would appreciate it if you would be so kind as to advise me as to the latest type of equipment on the market, with a scale of charges : (a) normal overheads per day, (b) cost per mile for petrol and oil, tyres, etc.
It would be helpful if you could include information in regard to both petrol and oil engines. S.R.A. Shrewsbury.
[The equipment you require should be similar to the Latil Traulier, Foden tractor or Scammell tractor with timberhauling trailer. The La.til and Scammell can be obtained with either petrol or oil engine, the Foden with oil engine only. You may expect that the weekly standing charges will total from £6 to £6 5s per week, that including provision for one man. If you employ additional operatives a,dd their wages to that total. The running costs in the case of a petrol-engined vehicle will approximate to 6d. per mile and in the case of an oil-engined vehicle to 5d. per mile. The charges you should make for work done with these vehicles should be. from 36 to 40 per cent. in excess of the total of standing charges and running costs for each job you do.—S.T.R.]
THE PUBLICATION OF RAILWAY RATES.
1=54211 Seeing that I am in full agreement with all that you have written on this matter, it is with reluctance that I intervene,, but as " Salis," in his letter No. 5416 in your issue for August 5, rather suggests that I am in agreement with his views instead of yours, perhaps you will allow me to explain that this is not the case.
It seems to me that the whole issue is becoming very confused. To my mind, all that we should be discussing is : (1) Is it or is it not a fact that the bulk of the traffic carried by the railways is subjected to rates and charges other than the standard figures? (2) Whether such rates and charges are published in such a manner that every haulier or Tom, Dick and Harry can see them at a glance.
The answer to (1) is obviously "Yes," and to (2) definitely "No." I have always maintained it to be a farce for the railways to claim that their rates and charges are public property for every eye to see. The exact position is, in practice, that these rates and charges are shrouded in mystic secrecy at the railway stations and only the trained mind can understand them.
Actually, nobody can understand a railway rate book unless he has had railways experience; moreover, it is useless even referring to a railway rate book until one has first made himself thoroughly conversant with another important book, viz., " The General Classification of Goods."
I venture to suggest that the hauliers throughout the country who are competent to calculate railway goods charges could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Not only is the majority totally disinterested, for they maintain that their (road) charges should be based on "cost of service," but because they know full well that the bulk of the traffic conveyed by the railways is at exceptional rates, many of which can alter hourly.
Again, hauliers know only too well that a trader can ring up the railway company and secure a reduction in a railway rate within a few hours. These facts prove the force of my contention that railway rates and charges are definitely not ascertainable at a glance.
Regarding the claim by " Salis " that many persons, including myself, would plead guilty to using railway rates as a yard-stick for their own purposes, this needs considerable qualification. Actually, it is traders who use this yard-stick, because when a haulier quotes a rate in excess of the railway rate the trader promptly quotes the railway figure and demands a lower rate. Indeed, traders often take advantage of the haulier's ignorance of the railway rates ; for example, in quoting a railway rate he sometimes mentions only the "S. to S. rate" and the haulier is unaware that the local cartage charges at both ends must be added to arrive at the correct railway charge.
I frankly admit that I have always maintained that so long as the haulier is in competition with the railways he must, of necessity, take into consideration the railway rate when quoting, andY surely " Salis " must agree with that view. To my knowledge not only do hauliers lose considerable business through quoting rates in excess of the rail rates, but on the other hand they lose considerable revenue in charging rates considerably below those of the railway.
However, as already stated, all this is extraneous to your original article, with which, as I have explained. I am in complete agreement.
WALTER GAIRMONS, Managing Director London, E.C.2. (for Walter Gammons, Limited).
WHY SELL NOW?—A MESSAGE TO THE " PLUSFIVE " MAN.
15422] Would-be gamblers in authorized tonnage are still endeavouring to beguile foolish virgins of the haulage industry. Their object, always, is to drive a hard bargain, and the trap is set accordingly. Now, it may be assumed that the ,value of authorized tonnage is at its lowest at the fag end of the licence, so that is precisely when negotiations are initiated.
Those responsible are well aware that as soon as a licence is granted for, perhaps, five more reasonably care-free years, up will go the price, unless they happen to be dealing with an absolute simpleton. I blame no one for seeking to take advantage of the market, for that is an amiable failing of which we are all capable. I do, however, censor those who lend themselves blindly to exploitation, and this is exactly what is happening amongst the independent hauliers of to-day.
Then, again, is such commercial enterprise inspired by the earnest desire to become dictators of transport or is it just another nasty little gamble by those whose vision is not beyond the money bags? In seeking to acquire authorized tonnage, are they counting on another turn of the wheel that will produce quick, handsome and unearned profits?
I urge all those who are approached with offers for the purchase of their authorized tonnage, to the elimination of their licences, to proceed with the greatest caution, endeavour to ascertain who is really at the back of it all and then delay the negotiations until the renewal of their licences places them on a higher plane and enables them to open their mouths very much wider. Remember that once this five-year licensing comes into effect, the businesses of those who hold A licences will have a "
market" value 250 per cent. more than they have ever enjoyed before. These gamblers know it—and if you do wish to sell make them pay for it.
The formation of combines in the road-transport industry may well have a far-reaching ill-effect, and I have no doubt that the S.M.M. and T. is fully alive to the danger of a diminishing market. There is more to it than that, however, and one might well suspect a sinister intent behind many of the negotiations now in progress for the acquisition of haulage concerns. Even in the early stages, facts and figures must be discussed and the haulier, in furnishing information, may be forging a weapon against himself to be used by those of whom he is at present unaware. My final message to the independent haulier is this : If you must sell out, do so to your advantage and not to theirs. Wait until you are a " plus-five " man and
then say "What about it?" E. H. B. PALMER. London, S.W.1.
GOVERNING THE GARDNER ENGINE.
[54231 May I be permitted to bring to your notice a slight error which occurs at the foot of the first column on page 858 in The Commercial Motor dated August 5?
It would appear that you have described the C.A.V.Bosch governor as being fitted to the Gardner engine; this, as you may recall, is not correct. The governor, fuel pump, camshaft and tappet assembly are, and always have been, of our own manufacture.
We are anxious to point out this difference because the Gardner governor is particularly applicable to the class of duties such as you describe in your article, as it has complete control of the engine from full load to no load at whatever speed it may be set.
This is as distinct from governors which control only idle and maximum speed and are but a torque control and not a speed control at intermediate revolutions.
JOHN K. G.ARDNER
(for L. Gardner and Sons, Ltd.). Patricroft, Manchester.
A TRAFFIC COURT ANOMALY.
[5424] The Licensing Authorities, as a body and individually, are performing a most difficult task in dealing with applications for Licences. They are doing it well and with impartiality, it most of us in the industry agree. Occasionally, however, a decision is given which, to say the least, is extremely difficult to understand.
Such an instance arose recently. A haulier friend of mine, engaged principally in parcel carrying, applied for an additional vehicle, to 1 e used in the delivery of parcels over a rural route, calling at a number of villages, notably lacking as regards delivery of parcels consigned to them by rail.
The railway companies entered objection, on the ground that they already provided sufficient and adequate facilities. The applicant protested that this was not so, that parcels intended for some of the villages named in the application had to be collected from one particular station situated some miles away.
The advocate for the railway companies insisted that the facts were as he had stated and that parcels would be delivered direct. The case happened to be adjourned for a few days and my friend, a live wire, promptly dispatched a parcel, by rail, to an acquaintance residing in one of the villages mentioned in his application. The consignee did not receive the parcel but, in its stead, a formal notification from the railway company that a parcel was awaiting his collection at the station. Further, that if he did not collect it within the next three days, additional charges would be incurred. My friend took this notice and the other evidence relating to it to the adjourned hearing and produced it for the attention of the Authority.
One would have thought that that would have been sufficient to turn the decision in his favour and that the Authority would have had no option but to grant him the licence for which he was applying. That did not happen. The Authority replied that there was no doubt in his mind that if there was really any need for the service the railway company would provide it!
Now here is a case of an enterprising haulier discovering a need and setting himself out to meet it, He would not do so if he was not reasonably sure that the undertaking would be profitable to him. That is to say, he has, as the result of his own inquiries, found that he could obtain sufficient traffic over the route to make it remunerative. He is an efficient business man, of wide experience and not likely to make a mistake. To put the matter in the words of the Act : he has satisfied himself that there is a public need for the service and that suitable and adequate alternative facilities are not available, yet his application for a licence was turned down. What can we, in the haulage industry, make of an attitude
such as this? ETHICUS. London, N.2.
THE ECONOMICS OF PRODUCER GAS.
[54251 In your issue of July 29, Mr. H. Scott Hall holds that your article comparing the performance of a standard lorry on petrol and producer gas takes too sanguine a view of the latter. As the figures quoted relate to a vehicle using a Koela producer, perhaps you will permit me an opportunity to reply, dealing first with the question of cost and subsequently with the question of convenience.
For a 3-ton vehicle the figure of 2.62d. per mile for a producer-gas-operated vehicle includes an extra 0.05d. per mile for maintenance and an extra 0.08d. per mile for depreciation. On the total running costs per week of, say, 600 miles, after allowing an extra 3s. 6d. for labour (on a 48-hour basis), there is a saving of 22 10s. a week against the figure given for a corresponding petrol vehicle in your current Tables of Operating Costs. Incidentally, in contrast to Mr. Scott Hall's assertion, the fire in the producer does not have to be lighted every morning, as it "stays in" overnight unless deliberately put out.
Employing the fuels available to-day, the generator does not need cleaning more than once a week, whilst our new type of cleaner (illustrated in your issue of July 15) requires only about 11 minutes per day.
As regards convenience, it is hoped shortly to have fuel available in dust-proof paper bags at a sufficient number of points for the additional weight of the fuel to be of small importance. The chairman of Low Temperature Carbonisation, Ltd„ explained in his annual address on July 1, that suitable Coalite for gas producers was now available, and that the previous year his company had 5,000 distributors! Other fuel producers also have extensive distributing organizations, and both they and ourselves are aware of the need for (and are working to provide) the convenience as well as the economy that operators require.
As regards the disabilities in connection with taxation and speed-limit categories, we quite agree that their removal would encourage more widespread utilization of gas producers. However, in the great majority of cases (some 80 per cent.), the only disability, even at present, is the possibility that the weight of the gas plant will take a vehicle into a higher taxation category (i.e., Road Fund licence of between 25 and 220 more per annum), offset by a net saving, as I have shown, for a 3-ton vehicle, varying from 22 10s, for a 48-hour week of 600 miles, to 26 19s. a week for a 96-hour week of 1,600 miles.
I have not dealt with the additional security in time of war Or the additional employment in peace which would result while making these economies, as I believe that both these points are now widely appreciated.
London, W .C. 2 B. E. M. GOLDMAN.
(for Koela Producer-Gas Plant Co., Ltd.).,