OPINIONS and QUERIES The Editor invites correspondence on cal subjects
Page 50
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
connected with the use of commercial motors, Letters should be written on only one side of the paper. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
Possibilities of Dock Haulage.
The Eesztor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2976] Sir,—I am thinking of purchasing a lorry of about two tons capacity, and starting a goods cervice between Middlesbrough Docks and Liverpool Docks, passing through Leeds and Huddersfield. Can you give me any points as to how I should commence? Of course, I do not know yet whether it is practicable.
Could I . compete against the shipping rates? To whom do you think I should apply for work, the shipping firms or the steel-making firms?. Would a four or six-wheeler be better?—Yours faithfully,
Durham, J. E. LANGHORN.
[For long-distance heavy haulage the bigger the unit you can use the better, always provided, of course, that you can get loads to fill that unit. You will appreciate, therefore, that I cannot recommend you to buy a vehicle of two-ton capacity for this work.
Your complete journey is about 140 miles. With a two-tonner you might, with luck in finding loads, do four double journeys a week, which is 1,120 miles. For that your charge should be about £28, which is £3 10s. per single journey, 35s. per ton, and so low a charge as that only if you had loads each way every time. With a 12-tonner you would probably do three complete journeys per week, covering 840 miles, for which you should charge £60, which is £10 per single journey, or 16s. 8d. per ton.
If you inquire locally what the rates are for the classes of goods you are thinking of carrying, you will then be able to judge what are your prospects of success. Get into touch both, with the shipping and the steel-making firms.—S.T.R.]
The Pre-combustion-chamber Diesel.
The Editor,THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2977] Sir,—In reply to Mr. S. IV. Nixon's letter in your issue for December 24th, may I assure Mr. Nixon that nay "discreet silence" on the disadvantages was quite unintentional. The extraordinary, and even fascinating, results that I have obtained in actual practice with this machine [the Merckles-Benz —En.] have made me so enthusiastic that I have overlooked the faults. These, however, in actual practice, do not appear to detract in any way from its performance, and are completely swamped by the advantages.
In theory, the output per litre of capacity is low, and yet taking a list of nine different makes (from a German technical journal), with the exception of the two-stroke examples, the Mercedes-Betrz figure of 8.25 is within 0.35 of the best shown. Again, in practice, the 77 h.p. Mercedhs engine (the latest), which runs at 1,650-1,750 r.p.m., is of seven-litre capacity, thus giving a figure of 11 h.p. per litre, i.e., approaching the direct-injection figure. With a supercharger this figure was raised to nearly 22 h.p. per litre.
The fuel consumption of 200-220 grammes per b.h.n.hour may possibly be a shade higher than the best of the direct-injection machines, but the difference is so slight as to have no appreciable effect.
The heater units are employed to provide the initial heat only for the start-up and in general use they are not required again during a day's work. The beat losses have not been found in actual practice to be any disadvantage.
The pre-combustion chamber, being so small, apparently does not restrict the spate required ftii. the valves, e9Q
I am, naturally, aware that other firms have developed and produced satisfactory engines of this class, but my opinion is that for combined efficiency, reliability and economy-, over the severe test of time; this pre-combustion-chamber engine will prove the winner.
—Your faithfully,. W H. GODDARD. Leeds,
Finding Work for Steam Wagons.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MoToa.
[2978] Sir,—Being a very interested reader of your many articles it occurs to me that you might be able to do me a favour, for which I should be most grateful.
I am seeking contracts for six-yard steam tippers, as although I have advertised considerably I can get no satisfactory replies. People like the B.M.I. and R.M.T. apparently get owner-drivers to work at about £17 per week, average earnings, at which figure I cannot see that there is any margin at all, rather a )oss. I have first-class men and good vehicles— Fowler three-way tippers—in good order, and can work trailers, i.e., taking 10-yard loads together.
With the extensive building operations going on generally, I thought that I should quickly be able to get fixed up, but such has not been the case. I can get promises of regular work at the rate mentioned, but I seek a fixed contract—the bigger the better— at a fair rate which, according to your Tables, should work out at about £30 per week for an 8-ton steamer with trailer.
I should be quite prepared to pay for an application in your space dealing with problems of the haulier.
I shall be most grateful for any assistance—as I have men most anxious to get on with the job.—Yours faithfully, HAULIER. Lincs.
[I should like to be able to help you in the way you ask, but am afraid it is beyond my scope. No " paid-for " advertisements are ever inserted in the editorial columns of The Commercial Motor.
For a 6-ton steam lorry £17 per week brings in a gross profit of 17 over the operating costs if the weekly mileage does not exceed 100. At 206 miles it is reduced to .£4. The owner-drivers silo accept these terms are probably content with that profit.
For a steamer and trailer £30 will bring in a gross profit of 18 per week if the mileage be abotit 350 per week. That is a big mileage, and not likely to be reached in a building contract. Two hundred miles per week, or 250, is a more likely figure. At that £27 per week will bring in a gross profit of 18, whilst £25 shows a weekly profit of 16 gross.
Contractors are loath to engage hauliers for long periods, and that is the real reason why you have been unable to arrange matters as you wish. You should persevere with the day-to-day work, keeping your eyes open in case the opportunity for entering into a contract should present itself.—S.T.R.]
How a Leyland Lorry Averted a Tramcar Smash.
• The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2979] Sir,—The coolness of a driver and the efficiency of the braking system of a Leyland lorry were responsible recently for the escape from death of a number of tramcar passengers when atramcar ran away out of control on a steep incline at Accrington The accident took place about 7.15 on a dark and foggy morning. The tram had baited on the breast of the hill to pick up passengers and after restarting down
the slope the driver shut off power, but on applying the electric brake found that it would not hold the car. The hand-brake was equally useless in checking the speed.,-,
The train began to gather speed, and soon was rushing down the hill. Suddenly, with a terrific crash, it dashed into the back of a timber lorry at a railway arch near the bottom of the hill. The shock threw the lorry forward, but the driver kept his head and continued to steer the vehicle. As the tram again caught up with the lorry the driver gradually applied his brakes, so that, within approximately 100 yards from where the tram first struck his vehicle, the driver was able to bring both vehicles to rest.
Thanks to the driver's presence of mind and the power of the brakes on the Leyland, only three people were injured, 'although the tram was well filled on both decks. The injured were the driver of the tram, the driver of the lorry (shock and bruises), and one of the passengers in the tram.—Yours faithfully,
Leyland. LEYLAND MOTORS, LTD.
Pioneers of the Compact Double-decker.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[29801 Sir,—We have read with interest your article, in a recent issue of The Commercial Motor, entitled "A Compact Double-deck Body," and are rather surprised to note your remarks referring to this vehicle.
If you refer back to your issue of January 1st, 1929, you will find that 'you illustrated and described at some length a vehicle of similar design which we built for Mr. T. J. Furey,. of Ireland. The only difference between our vehicle and that described in your article was that we arranged for the seats to be converted to bunks for night travelling if required.
As we are the pioneers of this type of construction in this country, we think it only fair that you should make some announcement to this effect following upon your article. We would also point out that we took steps to patent our design in this country, arid although so far there has been no demand for it we think that it forms the basis of a really good type of vehicle for the designer to work on.—Yours
faithfully, J. R. STRACHAN, Managing Director, London. For STRACHANS (ACTON), LTD.
[The recent article referred to described an American body of a type for which a patent has just been obtained from the British Patent Office, It certainly hears a marked resemblance to the Strachan design and constitutes another proof of the need for drastic reforms in our patent procedure. At present there appears to be the possibility of far too much overlapping, which 'negatives much, of the protection which should be afforded the patentee.—En.]
Using Converted Six-wheelers for Beet Haulage.
The Editor, TBE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2981] Sir,-1 am about 20 miles from a sugar-beet factory and would like your opinion on the following points :— (1) I know a new Morris Commercial 30-cwt. lorry that has taken three and four loads of 42-45 cwt.
sugar. beet a (Jay. Three loads a day is about a normal day's , work, and . would shirt from 6i-61 • tons of beet per day.
(2) There are, I think conversions for making the Ford and Chevrolet 30-cwt. models into six-wheelers to carry three tons.4 Taking three loads a day, one of these would shift about nine tons.
(3) A 30-cwt. Yard, Chevrolet ,or Morris-Cormier-. cial 30-cwt. hauling a two-wheeled pneumatic-tyred trailer to carry about 25 cwt., would shift in three loads about 8-84 tons per day.
Is it satisfactory to overload a 30-cut. lorry toi this extent and expect it to do this work for long? Will these conversions carry the weight quoted satisfactorily? What would be the running costs compared with the ordinary models? Is this practical?
What is the price per ton to be charged to leave a profit from £3 10s.-£4 a week?—Ycrurs faithfully,
Norwich, P.M.
[I prefer not to give advice on any. proposition which involves the consistent overloading of a motor vehicle. That answers your first question.
I am of the opinion that, over a prolonged period of nso it will be found that the total operating cost of a threeton conversion such as those you have in mind will approximate very closely to that of any other threetonner. It is at least as likely to be more as less.
The proposal to use a light two-wheeled trailer is practical, subject to the risk of the necessity for excessive tnancenvring delaying collection and delivery so much as to reduce the earning powers of the outfit.
Assuming three loads per day, 15 loads per week, you will haul 45 tons per week. Your revenue must be £22 10s., which is equivalent to 10s. per ton. I very much doubt if it be possible to maintain an average of three loads per day, and advise you to investigate the truth of the statement with which you open your letter.—S.T.R.]
An Appreciative Reader.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2982] Sir,—I have been a reader of your excellent journal only since July last, and I much appreciate the various articles you publish, especially those entitled "Problems of the Haulier and Carrier" and "Opinions and Queries."
• As I am about to become a partner in a heavy-motor haulage business, I am now most keenly interested in cost per ton per mile, and if you will kindly send me a copy of your Tables of Operating Costs for heavy commercial vehicles I shall be extremely obliged.
I should like to say that you have now added another subscriber to your list, as I have given an order to my newsagent to supply your journal weekly.
Thankingyou and wishing you continued success.— Yours faithfully, H. J. BAss. Sydenham.
[We thank Mr. Bass for his kind remarks. It is most satisfactory to the staff of this journal to realize that our efforts to help readers with practical advice are not only appreciated, but that the problems solved for' individual inquirers also prove of interest and value to many others.—ED.]