AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Opinions from Others.

17th September 1914
Page 20
Page 20, 17th September 1914 — Opinions from Others.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Design of Steam Tractors.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1358] Sir,—When referring to the inefficiency of the compound system in my letter, which you numbered 1352, I had in view the fact that the motorcar engineers, when designing an engine, need not— in fact, did not—take into consideration the relation which its tractive power would bear to the adhesive weight on the driving wheels of the vehicle. For instance, they would have no hesitation in placing an engine which would develop 100 h.p. on a similar vehicle to that which was designed for a 20 lep_ engine.

This is considered impracticable when applied to locomotives. Indeed, it is this fetish in locomotive design which prevents, the compound system's becoming a success. There appears no reason whatever why the compound system should not be as prevalent in locomotive as it is in marine practice. Curicusly enough, Continental engineers are again in the front rank in this respect. It is true the progress they are making is slow, but the time is drawing near when not a single simple engine will be made for locomotive work. Needless to say, British engineers will be compelled to follow suit. Mr. Lalonde stated in his letter (No. 1346) that the compound system was totally unfitted for shunting and backing purposes—with which I agree. My contention is that it is practicable to design a. compound system which will make it impracticable for a simple engine to compete with it. I shall be pleased to show Mr. Lalonde a compound system at work in a steam ear which can do everything a simple engine can do, and as it can make use of the same weight of steam over piston area three times greater than the simple engine, it must develop considerably greater power.—Yours faithfully,

Brockley, S.E. JOHN RIEKIE.

Fines for Technical Offences.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1359] Sir,—As a regular reader of the " C.M." I agree with " Lancastrian's " letter on the above subject, in which an appeal is made to magistrates to use a little discretion when imposing fines on drivers a commercial motors. The particular districts I have in mind are between Liverpool, Burnley, Accrington, Bolton and Manchester.

I do nob think I should be exaggerating if I said there was more heavy motor traffic from these places to and from Manchester than in any other county. Yet there is every effort being made to ruin the carrying industry there. The routes between Burnley and Accrington and Manchester come in close contact with Rawtenstall and Haalingden, both towns under the supervision of one superintendent of police. The least offence there will not meet with less than 23 fine and costs.

Magistratea tell you they must believe their officers. I do not think it possible to tell speed to a few miles per hour. A youth 19 was fined 23 and costs, also two other drivers, and others 25 and costs.

The bigger the owners thogreater the fines. It is very evident the magistrates say to themselves that the masters pay, so never mind. But I wish to point out that this is not so. I know eeveral people who are very awkwardly placed on account of these fines.

My own experience is that, having now to adhere to the 12-mile limit causes me to work two hours a day longer' with no extras, and then very often I have to bring goods back. I should like to hear of other experiences.

We do get better treatment from the Manchester and Salford police.—Yours faithfully,

Rusholme. ROBERT S. WOOD Rusholme. ROBERT S. WOOD ( Undue police and magisterial severity is to be deprecated. The period of excessive rolice zeal will surely end before long.–End

Made in Germany. Why Bother About Revocation?

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

L1360] Sir,—I think your poster dealing with the Made in Germany" question one of the nest things of its sort that the war has produced, and I carefully read the reproduced official documents which you published. I am, however, still somewhat at a loss to understand the situation with regard to the revocation of German patents in this country. So far as I can see, over and beyond the protection thus afforded to anyone who desires to manufacture German patented devices for the period of the war, and for six months afterwards, I cannot imagine what is to prevent anybody manufacturing a patented article of this kind without making application for the revocation of the patent. For the simple reason that there obviously would be nobody on the spot, at any rate until the war is over to apply for an injunction to prevent such manufacture, and at the end of hostilities it would be an extremely difficult matter for any German or Austrian subject to ascertain what material damage he had suffered by such infringement during the period of warfare. Then, again, with regard to the protection that is afforded over a period extending to six months after the cessation of hostilities, this does not appear to me to be sufficient to warrant the putting down of expensive specialised plant to manufacture. In order that full opportunity to employ capital in this way may be given to British subjects, it seems to me that some scheme should be evolved which will enable production of erstwhile German patented goods to be free in this country not only until the six months in question has expired, but also to insure that such manufacturers shall have the right to continue to produce under special licence. That is to say, when a revoked German patent is re-established, all those people who can prove that they have been manufacturing, and have gone to the expense of putting down plant in Great Britain during the period suggested, should be allowed to proceed to manufacture on some special terms, indeed if not quite freely.—Yours faith fully, "TRADE WAR."


comments powered by Disqus