In Your Opinion
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Hard Men
MEMBERS OF the Institute of Road Transport Engineers will undoubtedly discuss the article on "Effort—where has it gone?" by "Experto Crede" in the March 18 issue.
The article is bound to raise many observations and as such is a most useful contribution by a very experienced road transport engineer. However, the principles can be applied to a great many older industries by most of the older employees, and the situation can be summarized—perhaps over simplified—by stating that:—
Those who came up the "hard way" are now in command. They are responsible for salaries, discipline and training—or lack of it—in their industry. They are hard men out of a hard school.
Road transport is a growth industry, with the application of modern principles of management. It cannot fail to become attractive to the ambitious and enterprising young engineer. He must be encouraged to obtain qualifications and prove the economic case for the value of his skill and responsibilities. The Institute of Road Transport Engineers have been doing this for the past 21 years.
Would the "old hands" do all they can "in the next 10 years or less" to apply modern principles—that is, encourage technical qualifications, publicize the economics of mechanically efficient fleets and stress the proper use of the capital employed in their vehicles? When these facts are more widely accepted then the rewards for the road transport engineer will be commensurate.
It is asking a lot of anyone to press for better conditions for the next generation, but many a hard man has mellowed in his later years! We feel sure "Expert° Crede" is one of them.
J. A. FLETCHER, Secretary, IRTE
Railways Should Carry More DEFERRING to the editorial in the March 4 issue, by only IN. half stating the facts you completely alter the veracity of the situation concerning transport in this country.
It is nonsense to say "The man who pays prefers road transport" without qualifying the statement. What you shotild have said was that the man who pays does not "care a fig" how his goods are carried from A to B provided the price is right and the service he uses is efficient and reliable.
We are all aware that up to and including the present time, on the score of efficiency and reliability and because of the trade union situation on the railways, road transport is preferred.
However, if the railways were properly managed—and I think that necessity will drive us to making the Government of the day ensure that they are—a completely different picture must emerge.
That a very large proportion of the goods travelling by road should and could go by rail is obvious. More and more people are at last realising that perhaps road transport is not cheaper than rail transport when the matter is properly costed. They are saying that the private motorist is subsidizing the heavy vehicle operator, who isn't paying anything like what he should be doing in road fund licence. Also that the situation which allows everything to be carried by road is being subsidized by the general public in terms of road noise, smell and the increasing number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles.
There is also the factor of the number of vehicles found to be unroadworthy after spot checks which are in a sense operating at the expense of the public, safety-wise at any rate.
I do not think you have made your point and it is you who is "just not with it". If we are all going to live happily together in this tight little island and, what is more relevant, own a car, then cars must have preference. The railways must be put in order to carry a large percentage of goods at present going by road, which they could do at a competitive price if the matter were dealt with fairly. H. JoRpoN, Smallbrook, Birmingham 5.
London Transport Defended
NIVITH reference to Mr. Wall's letter "Why praise LTB?"
(COMMERCIAL MOTOR, March 11), whilst I agree with him on some points, the standard of roads in Holland and other European countries is much higher, therefore the Dutch can make full use of 167 b.h.p. engines.
Also, as mentioned by Derek Moses in the article "New look on London Streets" in the same issue, London Transport had a very advanced double-deck coach about 30 years ago (LT1137) and pioneered the pre-selective gearbox developed by Daimler and AEC.
Britain may be behind with mopeds and so on, but we are well ahead on modern bus design. If Stockholm has such efficient buses (which I do not doubt) just remember that they are British and LTB probably gave Stockholm some information on certain aspects and points.
How is it that London buses, after 17 years service with LTB, go all over the world for further service with operators such as the Ceylon Transport Board, not to mention the hundreds of independent operators in Britain? Then there are the municipal operators such as Walsall, Bradford and St. Helens who bought new RT-type AECs after having permission to copy LTB patents.
As regards derating, naturally it depends on operating conditions, but what about the ever popular Daimler Fleetline with Gardner 150 b.h.p. engine? Also the Leyland Atlantean, and particularly the Ribble Gay Hostess coaches which can top 60-70 m.p.h. when on the motorways.
Returning to LTB—with the difficulties of staff it is only fair to expect that the introduction of new vehicles would be delayed, although I agree that they are only experimental. Consider London's traffic as well, fuel tax, wages, increases in running costs and so on —can London Transport afford "Royal Rolls-Royce Routemasters"?
Could not Mrs. Castle pass the necessary regulations to permit LTB to operate its one-man Fleetline double-deckers? It is no use blaming operators when one should have a go at the Government. DAVID L. MORGAN, Walsall.
Services Normal YOUR READERS may be interested to learn that since I last wrote (COMMERCIAL MOTOR, January 7) the economic sanctions have had remarkably little effect on our lives, with the possible exception of petrol rationing; but even that has not caused any hardship. The inconvenience of this and the shortage of some imported luxuries (not essentials), has not daunted the people in the least. The reverse effect has stimulated unity and resolution.
In the field of transport our services are virtually normal, but we are, of course, practising most careful economies—such as no half loads on trunk vehicles, no small parcel deliveries from three-tonners. And on the mechanical side we are being fussy about fuel pumps and carburetters, reconditioning instead of removing parts, and so on.
You must watch developments in Rhodesia. We may be a small country, but when all this nonsense is over, we will have a "tiger in our tank".
G. LINDSELL-STEWART, Umtali, Rhodesia. continued on page 57