OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the u. se of commercial motors. Letters should be on one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
The Cost of Mechanical Transport.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,946] Sir,—I am very sorry that, being out of town, I did not see the interesting article written by " The Skotch " in your issue of May 2nd, under the heading of "Help for Hauliers." This article dealt with a booklet of which I am the author, entitled, "The Cost of Motor Transport." May I be allowed at this late date to answer one or two of the points raised? The chief criticism of "The Sketch" was that the Costs given are too favourable to the Republic vehicle; in fact, your contributor goes so far as actually tcs state that the figures are not reliable. I must strongly dispute this statement. He does not say the figures are unattainable, but that they are far removed from the average attainment. I can emphatically state that these figures are given as an average result of hundreds of users.
For instance, in the case of the petrol consumption your contributor absolutely disputes a consumption of 14 m.p.g. on our 2-ton model, and says that a good average for a vehicle of this weight is 10 m.p.g. Does he, then, assume that every make of vehicle of the same carrying capacity, has the same petrol consumption? My figures do not deal with average vehicles ; they deal with Republics, and I should like to know if The Skotch " has had actual experience of this make. If he has not, then how is he able to make definite assertions as to the unreliability of my figures? Apart from one customer, whose fleet, consisting of 34 Republic 2-tonners, which have an average number of 220 stops par day per vehicle, I can vouch that every single user of a 2-ton Republic truck is getting well over 10 m.p.g., and I would like it understood that the figures given in my booklet are entirely English figures compiled by English owners on English roads. The references to American roads, American gallons, etc., have nothing whatever to do with the case, as this booklet was issued by the English house, and had nothing whatever to do with American experience.
I may say, in conclusion, that it is our practice to refer would-be purchasers of Republic trucks to other owners, and I can show "The Sketch," if he cares to call here, letters written by customers showing a petrol consumption of up to 17 miles to the gallon on our 2-ton motlel, and up to 19 miles to the gallon on our 30-cwt. model.
Naturally, the petrol consumption depends entirely on the number of stops and the nature of the work, and I do not claim for one minute that a 2-ton Republic running, say, in the Cit.'? of London, where there would be a number of traffic stops, would reach an average petrol consumption of 14 miles to the gallon; but I do maintain, and can prove, that a Republic 2-tonner, with ordinary country running and, say, half a dozen to a dozen stops, can easily average 14 miles to the gallon year in and year out.
We have always sold our vehicles on this petrol consumption, and we have never yet had a complaint; in fact, from time to time we receive letters from our customers informing us that they get a better petrol consumption than we claim—that is because we are conservative, and only claim a petrol consumption which we know can be beaten by careful users.
Therefore I strongly resent the statements of "The Skota " when he intimates to his readers that the figures in my booklet are issued for the purnose of selling our vehicles under false pretences. Those
are not our methods, and I hope you will give me this opportunity of repudiating such an accusation in your columns.—Yours faithfully,
A. Fs P. PHILLIPS, Manager,
REPUBLIC TRUCKS, LTD.
Railways and the Roads.
'The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,947] Sir,—I shall be glad if you will permit me a little space to refer to the letter (No. 1944) from Mr. W. Chas. Bolton, N.U.R., in a recent issue. It is inconceivable to me that he or his colleague, Mr. J. H. Thomas, could do otherwise than support this Bill, which, of course, is framed in the interests of the railway companies and their employees. I do not blame either the companies or their employees for looking after No. 1—that is only natural—but I do object to their pleading that, in so doing, they are studying the interests of citizenship I Presumably, Mr. W. Chas. Bolton suggests that Mr. J. H. Thomas, in supporting this Bill, is inspired by citizenship, but I would remind him that Mr. Thomas concluded one of his recent articles to the Press 'with the words, "If the railway companies are refused road transport powers, 600,000 railwaymen will require to know the reason why." If he had had the interests of citizenship in mind, I submit he should have also stated that the hundreds of thousands of road transport workers would also require to know the reason if their livelihood were taken away from them and given to the railwaymen.
If I mistake not, the citizens of this country will certainly require to know the reason if Parliament saddles them with a monopoly of inland transport ; a necessary corollary if the Bill be passed, and tantamount to nationalization of inland transport. We " citizens " had quite sufficient experience of transport " monopoly " or " nationalization " during the period of the war to last our lifetime ; it was not a case of autocracy, but tyranny pure and simple. As an ex-railwayman, I rejoice at the improved position of railwaymen, but I protest with all the force I can command against their being granted a monopoly. Naturally, the railway companies desire the return of their lost traffic, but I submit the orthodox way is either to command its return by improved facilities, or frankly admit they are outdone by a more enterprising competitor, not to weep and lament over the activities of the latter and appeal to the State to crush him. Road hauliers might just as reasonably bemoan the fact that aeroplanes have arrived!
It is possible, as Mr. W. Chas. Bolton mentions, that the companies might try back-door methods failing the present Bill, but two wrongs do not make a right, and if the companies really thought their alternative a real one, I hardly think they would disclose it.
The railways first pleaded that the road haulier was insufficiently taxed, and when it was pointed out to them that this was strange pleading if they seriously thought of undertaking road transport work, they now plead they (the companies) should be taxed less or not at all. Wholesale competition is good for all, and inflicts no hardship on any party in this case, and I cannot agree with Mr. W. Chas. Bolton that railway directors,"shareholders and railway workers are any more entitled to benefit directly from the roads than road hauliers are from the raways.—Yours faithfully,
p.p. W. GAMMONS AND CO.,
WALTER GAMMONS. C27