TRANSPORT FOR PUBLIC CLEANSING WORK.
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Some of the Points Raised in a Paper by Mr. J. A. Priestley, Cleansing Superintendent of Sheffield, and Details of the Discussion Thereon.
"UNTIRING' the course of the Public Works, Roads and JI.J Transport Congress and Exhibition, which closed at the Royal Agricultural Hall on Thursday of last week, a number of interesting papers was read, and one of outstanding concern to municipal transport officials was that for which Mr. J. A. Priestley, the Cleansing Superintendent of Sheffield, was responsible. This paper evoked considerable interest amongst local authorities generally, and delegates from all parts of the country listened to the arguments and views of their confreres , during the course of the discussion which centred around the points raised in the paper.
• The paper was not concerned with municipal transport in general, but with the factors to be considered in the selection of transport for public cleansing work, and in this connection Mr. Priestley directed attention to the fundamental principles to be considered and the results to be achieved rather than -tittering advice as tothe means to be
employed. .
The Classes into which Transport is Divided.
The author divided transport roughly into three classes : (1) Where a full load is carried from one point to another, • as in general haulage work ; (2) where a full load is taken and delivered gradually from point to point, as in parcels delivery work ; and (3) where a load is picked up from point • to point and delivered in bulk, as in cleansing work. Of these, the last two are obviously the most costly, and cleans' ing work which involves numerous calla and long hauls is necessarily one of these.
Mr. Priestley expressed the view that it should be the object of every cleansing official to meet the latter conditions with the class of transport that will best combine efficiency with economy. He emphasized the fact that neither aim should be wholly subordinated to the other, particularly as regards the sacrifice of efficiency to economy. It is not_ enough to rest satisfied with the system that is efficient if it can be shown that equal or better results can be obtained at a less cost. This being the case, it can never be said that finality in methods is reached, and the author stressed the point that every cleansing officer should keep in touch with new developments and be prepared to scrap both ideas and methods when experience or observation proved such action to be necessary.
The selection of the class of transport is, in Mr. Priestley's opinion, only one of the matters to be settled, for there are many questions of importance other than the choice between horse and mechanical transport or the adoption, in the latter case, of steam, petrol or electric wagons for the work, for it may be necessary to revolutionize methods without any change over from horse to motor or vice versa.
The Influence of Waiting Time on Costs.
Whatever the class of transport employed, there is one common factor influencing costs, and that is waiting time, which, singularly enough, exercises the least influence ' in those districts where the conditions are most. primitive. ' Where middens and ashpits exist and are emptied by throwing out on to the street, the refuse being shovel-loaded into the carts or wagons, the time occupied in obtaining a load is comparatively short and waiting time is negligible, whereas in a residential district of detached or semi-detached houses provided with portable dustbins, where the refuse has to be carried long distances to the waiting vehicle, the aggregate waiting time often exceeds the travelling time, even on the longest. hauls. Economy in collection necessarily involves reducing waiting time to a minimum, but the minimum in one town may be an impossible standard in another. Ur. Priestley then went on to discuss certain methods which have been adopted to reduce waiting time, and referred to the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Reference was then made to the relative advantages of horse and mechanical transport, and the author observed that it is generally understood that for short hauls horses are eheaper than motors, although this position is being challenged by the advent of the cheap, light vehicle carrying loads of from 1 ton to 2 tons.
The Length of Haul a Determining Factor.
The length of haul must be a further consideration in determining the class of transport to use, and, reasoning on these lines, Mr. Priestley went on to review the influence of the physical character of the district. Climatic conditions, he said, do affect the size and construction of vehicle bodies, for any conditions which tend to produce either light and bulky rubbish or heavy and compact refuse must be taken into account in determining the capacity of the collecting vehicle. Hence Penzance and Durham, for example, present entirely different factors in this respect. Seasonal variations exercise considerable influence upon the production of refuse, and must be provided for in any transport organization.
After considering all the factors involved, Mr. Priestley added that it may be found that no uniform system of transport will meet all the conditions, and a compromise between horses and motors may be found necessary. In this connection he referred to the advantages of a combination of the two forms bY what is known as the container system, and referred to the possibilities of this class of transport tor refuse collection.
Mr. Priestley had something to say on the question of loading facilities, and emphasized the fact that the best loading line is not necessarily the -same in all cases. Where receptacles are carried to the vehicle, or where they are lifted from the kerb, the lower the loading line the more easily and rapidly can the work be done ; but, where the refuse is carried on the shoulder, the best loading line is approximately shoulder height. He referred to the disadvantages of high-sided wagons with loading ladders, and spoke of the delay which they occasioned according to the frequency of their use.
The Need for an Efficient Type of Body Cover.
The subject of covers for vehicles then came under notice, and the author said that many types of cover and windshield had been tried with indifferent success. He mentioned the advantage to be gained by the use of some simply operated loading device which will convey the refuse from a low hopper and distribute it evenly without creating . dust in a capacious covered wagon, although he acknowledged that the practical application of the idea had not yet been satisfactorily solved.
Two further factors to be considered in the matter of refuse transport are the relation of hulk to weight and the • facilities for discharging the load. The author said that, in his opinion, due consideration is not always given to the former factor, with the result that 4-ton and 5-ton vehicles
• are sometimes used with bodies which have only a carrying capacity for refuse of about one-half those weights. Refuse varies greatly in bulk to weight ratio throughout the country, and hence vehicle builders who standardize the size of bodies cannot possibly cater for all users. After referring to tipping mechanism in general, Mr. Priestley mentioned the importance of wheel lock and turning circle in the selection of a vehicle.
Finally, Mr. Priestley had a few words to say concerning street cleansing which is not, in his view, subject to the same transport problems as refuse collection, for the work is more amenable to the introduction of mechanical appliances, and the horse offers no advantage over its mechanical rival save in the matter of interchangeable duty.
Whatever may be said in favour of the use of the horse as a haulagsS medium, there can, said Mr. Priestley, be no doubt as to it general unsuitability as a power unit, and there is no excuse for its employment as an engine to operate mechanical loaders, road sweepers or watering vehicles, whilst gully-cleansing machines • must necessarily be motor or steam-driven.
Provost Gilchrist (Falkirk), in proposing a vote of thanks to the author, mentioned that in his town the longest haul was 14 miles, and added that if salvage plants were economically used it would be possible to reduce the amount of haulage and so effect considerable economies.
Bonus Schemes in Operation in Birmingham.
Mr. Jackson (Salvage Superintendent, Birmingham), in seconding the vote, referred to thefact that in Birmingham horses, electric and petrol vehicles, .as well as the Pagefield system, are in use, and that very careful records were kept of the working of the four different methods. His experience had taught him that to speak of the cost of this work (refuse collection) in terms of cost per ton is entirely fallacious, and that the factor of cost per house was really the important one. He stated that, in order to encourage the men to get through their work as quickly as possible, a bonus system had been introduced. This was working quite satisfactorily, and for the first quarter of this year £800 was paid out sunder this scheme. In the case of electric vehicles, the battery problem, he said, was an important one, and a honue system in this connection had also worked well. A system had been arranged by which, after two years and four months, the drivers of the vehicles were allowed .f.1 per .month on the extended life of the battery, and he referred to certain batteries used by the corporation which had been running for three years.
Councillor Greig (Glasgow) said that the bonus system had also been instituted in Glasgow, and this was working well and enabling the men to earn good money.
Mr. Johnson (Northwich) said that rural districts had a specially difficult problem, because in many cases they were dependent upon horse haulage, which was hired from the farmers and others in the district, and it was very often found that after a farmer got the contract, if he wanted his horses at any time for hauling in his crops, he did not trouble to collect the house refuse.
Mr. Wilkinson (Willesden) said that something like 100 tons of refuse per day were collected in his district, mostly with electric vehicles, and he agreed with Mr. Priestley that the cheap, light motor vehicle was seriously challenging the horse for this class of work. In further discussing the question of refuse collection, he referred to low load-line vehicles, and said that be would like information concerning efficient types of cover for use on vehicles engaged in house-refuse collection.
The Problems in a Popular Seaside Resort.
Mr. Borg (Borough Engineer, Margate) said that his problem was similar to that of many other seaside towns, in that there was a very large amount of refuse to be disposed of during the summer months, and it had to be cleared away before midday. He stated that he is using Foden steam wagons, which sometimes hauled trailers for the work ; the load carried by the vehicles amounted to between 15 culE yds. and 16 cubic yds. He spoke of the need for low load-line vehicles of large capacity with suitable tipping gear for elevating the bodies, and suggested the use of a permanent top, something like that employed on a pantechnicon, for vehicles of this type, the loading and unloading operations to be conducted from the rear.
Mr. Lawson (Borough Surveyor, Deptford) advocated a combined ,district scheme of refuse collection for London which would avoid the need for each local authority making its own arrangements. He referred to the fact that in Deptford he was using vans at the present time with a capacity of 7 cubic yds. and a low load-line, the bodies of which tip to about 50 degrees, and these were working very satisfactorily under the conditions pertaining in his district. By their use, he added, it had been possible to bring the cost per ton of refuse collected down by 3d.
Refuse Collection and Disposal Involves a 434d. Rate in a Garden City.
Miss Bushell (Chairman of the Refuse Disposal Committee, Welwyn Garden City) said that there were some special problems to be dealt with in her district, where at present there were 800 houses inhabited by 3,000 people, although the extension of the city was so rapid that within a year there would be 5,000 inhabitants. She said that at present local contractors were engaged to undertake refuse collection and disposal, and the cost of the work involved a 4Ad. rate. it was hoped, however, to introduce some system of mechanical transport in the near future. '
Mr. De Groot (Hague), speaking in favour of mechanical transport for house-refuse collection, acknowledged the ability of such vehicles to contribute to the eeneral economy of public cleansing, apart from enabling refuse-collection tasks to be performed at greater speed.
Mr. Reid (Gelligaer) mentioned the fact that, at one time, he employed local contractors for the work of refuse collection, but, as a ring was formed to keep up prices, the council took over the work.
Alderman Muirhead (Liverpool) had much to say on the 'question of securing accurate data of working costs for public cleansing organizations, and said that the only figures which he had been able to obtain which gave him any guide at all outside his own city were those for the fleet of delivery vans run by Messrs. Selfridge.
Alderman Hollins (West Ham) expressed the opinion that the system adopted in West Ham, where horse-carts and ladders were employed, is archaic, and that the work of dust collection and street cleansing, instead of being under two committees as in the past, was, in future, to be carried out under the tegis of one committee.
The Observations of a Ministry of Health Official.
. Mr. J. C. Dawes (Ministry of Health), who was received
• with enthusiasm, then made a number of observations, and emphasized Mr. Priestley's point that local circumstances call for different treatment, and added that the whole problem of public cleansing had been a serious one for 20 years or more, and those who had studied it must still find it as perplexing as ever. He thought it to be impossible for one to say that there is a best system of collection for all conditions, and, whilst he was not of the opinion that
the time had conic when the horse could be dispensed with, he certainly was not of the opinion that that time would never come.
Mr. Dawes opposed the use of heavy vehicles for collecting house refuse, which, contrary to many people's views, is not heavy material. He thought that if light and more convenient forms of vehicle were used, the work could be done much more expeditiously and cheaply. He considered there was still further room for improvement in mechanically propelled vehicles used for this work, and referred to the fact that many of them did not properly discharge their load, thus bringing about a waste of time at the point of deposition. Following up this point, he maintained that the great thing was to keep the wheels turning round for so long a period as possible during the working day, and added that it was not enough to keep a vehicle running for 3 hrs. out of 8 hrs., and that at least 6 hrs. should be occupied in this nay.
As an instance of the variation in costs and the need for close investigation of the subject, he mentioned two towns where the figures he had inspected showed that the cost par ton of refuse collected was 4s, in one case and 20s. in the other. It is true, he added, that hi the latter case circumstances were different from those of the first case, but there should not be that great discrepancy.
Mr. Priestley, acknowledging the vote of thanks, briefly replied to some of the points raised in the discussion, and specially laid stress dpon the development of mechanically propelled vehicles.