AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Pistols For Two

24th April 1953, Page 53
24th April 1953
Page 53
Page 53, 24th April 1953 — Pistols For Two
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?

Keywords :

I N selecting vehicles for local-government service, it was wise to avoid specialized types requiring spares to be purchased from one source, said Mr. H. N. Cubbadge, mechanical superintendent of Camberwell Borough Council, on Tuesday. He was reading a paper on municipal trans-. port to members of the London branch of the Industrial Transport Association.

To purchase such specialized types, he said, was like offering the pistol to the makers to point at your own head. "Let us recondition the unit at EX, or else . . . . we will withhold the spares required." Mr. Cubbadge said that he had recently experienced such a demand.

Each year, he declared, brought still larger and more complicated pieces of mobile machinery to plague the

already-harassed transport engineer. " I fear," he said, "that it would be very unwise of me, . . publicly to voice my dislikes and preferences regarding some of these monstrosities but I must be fair and say that the ideas which lie behind the efforts of designers arc directed to aim at greater efficiency in dealing with essential services."

Sweeper-collectors "were mounted upon some form of modified chassis and by the engagement of gearing, the operator is able to drive along the roadway at approximately 3 m.p.h., with circular brushes turning which, theoretically, are meant to flick the dust towards a conveyor belt which, in turn, deposits it in the body of the vehicle, and in order to keep the clouds of dust from rising, a pump is operated which sprays the road in front of the revolving brushes." Mr. Cubbadge thought that such machines should be manufactured by "a certain well-known gentleman noted for his unorthodox designs."

The items of plant necessary for highway maintenance by a local authority included trucks, compressors, concrete mixers, mechanical shovels, gully machines, tar sprayers, gritters and sanders and road rollers. Vehicles for the collection of house refuse should have few moving parts. Excellent as moving floors and compressing devices were, their maintenance cost was relatively high. The simplest form of collector was the side or barrier loader, the former being preferred.

There were two chief systems of allocating transport in

municipal organizations. In one, each department was responsible for operating its own vehicles. In the other, all transport and plant were pooled under one man, departments drawing from the pool as their needs demanded.

Where demands were in excess of the authority's vehicles and plant, it was usual to fall back on plant-hire concerns on annual contract. By this arrangement an authority could undertake much larger public work than would be possible had it to rely on its own equipment.

As mechanization had been adopted gradually by local authorities, no predetermined policy had been laid down in respect of maintenance facilities. The workshops were probably some "hole and corner" which could not be used for any other purpose.

In the case of Mr. Cubbadge's organization, the need for up-to-date plant and vehicles, the tools to maintain them and a modern place to house those tools, had been appreciated. It was a policy Which could pay handsome dividends both to the council and to the ratepayers. Good tools of the right type made for a happier maintenance staff.

All repairs, including complete overhauls, were carried out in the council's own workshops. The only work which was put out was crankshaft grinding. Engines were rebored, on an average, at 30,000 miles, and complete overhauls were carried out at 60,000 miles.