AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.

8th February 1921
Page 27
Page 28
Page 27, 8th February 1921 — OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
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?

The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use 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 expressecris accepted.

Net Sale Circulation.

The Editor, THE, COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1602] Sir,—Your net sale circulation statement, which a,ppears on page 770 of your current issue, has been read by us with genuine interest, andi we think you are to be heartily congratulated in maintaining such a steady average weekly circulation, covering, as it does, both normal and busy seasons.

As regular advertisers for Many years we have tested beyond cavil the power of The years, Motor as a business-getter. We keep close tab on results obtained from our advertisements, and find that we get an exceptionally high percentage of orders from inquiries received by us through your journal.

Apart from this, the value of The Coll-mere-1a Motor as an advertising medium could never be better illustrated than by the unbroken record of your weekly circulation for 1920.

Having followed Very closely the "Net Sales" movement, your statement was of more than ordinary interest to us.

With assurances of our esteem.—Yours faithfully, BARIMAR,' LTD. 0. W. BRETT, Managing Director.

The Tax on the Double Purpose Vehicle.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[18031 Sir,—I beg to offer your readers an explanation of the term Solely for the Carriage of Goods" as used on the form, of application for a licence for commercial vehicles. The term only applies to a vehicle when the tax on "unladen weight " is less than the tax for carrying passengers. For instance, if the small carrier wishes to use his motor for both purposes, he may do so providing be pays the highest tax for the use to which he puts his motor.

A man having a licence for carrying six passengers pays 215 in London, but, if his motor weighs between 12 cwt. and 1 ton "unladen," he cannot use his vehicle for carrying goods unless he pays the higher fee, which is 216.

Therefore, by paying 216 he is entitled to use the vehicle as a hackney carriage, carrying not more than six passengers.

The authorities are not allowed to issue the two licences for one vehicle ; therefore, as each licence is more or less a receipt for the fee paid, they must issue a commercial vehicle licence at a charge of g16.

I have found this out by making inquiries at the L.C.O. offices in Charing Cross.Road, -when I registered my own vehiele.—Youre faithfully, Kennington, S.E. H. JAMES BLUNDEIS.

The Mersey Transport Muddle.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1804] Sir,—I feel your quotation of the remarks of the chairman of the Birkenhead Ferries Committee, though possibly accurate so fax as your reporter is concerned, unquestionably, in the reference to the alleged neglect of the Wallasey Ferries Committee, is entirely without foundation. The chairman of the Birkenhead Ferries Committee, if fully and correctly reported, is, as your report of the inquiry in 'Wallasey by the Ministry of Transport clearly proves, guilty of making use of language which he cannot justify and which serves most certainly no. useful purpose. Alderman John Failey, the Wallasey Ferries chairman, has for several years now, as I can vouch from

personal observation and conversations, watched at all times, day and night, weekdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays, the ever-growing congestion and, in concert with Oapt. Fry, the manager, has made every effort, with the imidequate out-of-date stages and lifts, to do all posSible at present. The Ferry Committees of the last five years are not „responsible for the lack of foresight displayed by their predecessors., who quite failed to :realize the needs of the future, In the meantime, Wallasey's application tothe Ministry of Transport with reference to the loan is still receiving the attention of Sir Erie Ceeddes, and a decision may be given during the present year.

It is, however, an open secret that the chairman of the Ferries Committee will decline to be responsible for burdening the present ratepayers,with this or any other scheme and, unless 60 years is theperiod allowed for repayment of expenditure on permanent works, etc., nothing is likely to be done. The only -solution is an 'entire reorganization of the docks in Birkenhead" one stage for all heavy traffic on the Cheshire side, and an uninterrupted road through the docks from Birkenhead to Wallasey.

However, what concerns the haulage contractor is not whether grass will grow in the Birkenhead docks, but whether it is worth while -at any tonnage, rate at all accepting traffic that necessitates crossing the Mersey. Let the hauliers refuse to carry at tonnage rates and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board' magnates would prObably be moved to approach the. Ministry, whilst even, possibly, the great one himself might inspect the "comic opera" on the Mersey shores instead of so carefully viewing the main trunk and other roads of the Western Highlands next Augu at.—Yours faithfully,

Per pro THE DIAMOND MOTOR 00:5 LTD., A. J. Balers-, Director. [The problem of tne congestion at the Mersey Ferries

has been developing for years, and we repeat what we have already said, that it is only by the setting aside of localjealousies and preferences and by joint action that an adequate solution can be found. We view with favour the suggestion of a federation of the four Merseyside boroughs-, the Lancashire and Cheshire Councils, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and a nominee of the Road Development Committee, for the Mersey Ferries have been truly described as a national highway. Every year thousands of pounds are being lost through the scandalous delays at the ferries. To refuse crossriver tonnage will certainly ease the situation, but a negative policy is not going to help matters. Everyone recognizes the difficulty of the position, and it is an illuminating fact that in all the-se years the true solution has not come forward.—En.

O. y1.11

Steamer v. Petrol.

The Editor. THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1805] Sir,—Having read the article upon the above in your issue of January 25th, I am blazing like the fire-box must have been on the Sentinel which was pitted against some—ah, no! I cannot believe it was a real petrol wagon! What makes me think so, is that you did not disclose its indentiq. Sir, I say, out with its name. It is perfectly disgraceful to know that we of the spirit can (petrol) are being let down so. To think I have stood loyally by the spirit ean all these years and now to read that a road Puffing Billy" has knocked the stuffing out of it, is too much. Most of us know the Sentinel ; who knows'but what the'petrol wagon may have Seen ten years .0n. the London streets, then Ole Bill " B " type, nine blues and a red, then sold as a three. on lorry, and its poor old heart broken by a six ton load.

Now that the steam wagon people have thrown down the gauntlet, I say clear the., decks for action, they are getting saucy. f feel sure our leading petrol Wagon manufacturers can put forward a five ton petrol wagon equal to any five ton steam. wagon. How I would enjoy driving. the old "Spirit Can_" against the old "Smoke Box " over a similar routenamed.

I take it to heart so much that, givea equal oppor, tanities and a resulting win on the -part of the steamer, I should feel I had nothing more to live for. —Yours faithfully, Dix-N.EuF QuaToun.

Liverpool. .

Running Costs of Electric Vehicles.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.

[1800] Sir,—The latest tabulation of " total Working costs of electric vehicles which cover a low weekly mileage," compiled by your contributor " The • Sketch?" and published in. your issue of Ja•nuaiy 25th, is distinguished by such further glaring exaggerationt that I must again protest. By "low weekly mileage," I take it to be understood that the vehicles—steam, petrol, and electric respectively, between which the attempt at:comparison Is made—are Working full time, and not merely making two continuous runs, out and home, of five miles or more each way per day. Rouse-to-house delivery, practically, is the question here, involving long hours, frequent stops and re-starts, but short total distances travelled—the main function of animal haulage hitherto. Deliveries are sonumerous, while taking up a few minutes only each, that the driver cannot be expected to stop the petrol engine and re-crank it on every occasion. Is it seriously contended, then, that the depreciation of these machines in such circumstances will not be greater than normal, and the fuel consuniptian comparable with that when the engine is working at reasonable efficiency? Yet these assumptions have been made (see explanation on page 789).

t. h e obviously longer term of service which an electric will give, relatively, your contributor debits a one ton machine with 1.46d, per mile for depreciation, a s against 1.15d. for a one ton 'petrol motor, and remains discreetly Silent on the respective percentage of. service loss through repairs ; on the question of current consumotion and also of

B20 maintenance of batteries, dealt with in my previous letter,. he remains placidly impervious to facts. " The Sketch prefers to get his facts out of his feelings. Statements such as made by Lord Montagu, in his address on the future of road transport, 'that the electric is a very economical vehicle in urban areas," and by Mr. F. Aytan, " that such economy amounts to at le,ast 40 per cent, below the Cost of running petrol vehicles on like duties," only make him the more determined to discredit battery traction, if possible, by piling on the. casts thereof and, thus, contrasting it unfavourably with other means of propulsion. We have had a. surfeit of his academical figures, and it is -high:time to proceed from guess , Work to definitely ascertained results:— (1) Large railway company...

3,000 miles per year ; 60 miles per week ; 10 miles , average per day-.

One ton petrol. • One ton electric. Fuel per year, 283. Current per year, 220 Fuel per mile, 6.6d. Current per mile., 1.63d.

Total costs compared • with horse haulage: Saving 296 per year. Saving 2296 per year.

(2) Published account of refuse collection. John L. Redfern, Esq., borough surveyor, 5 cubic yds. capacity ; about 20 miles per day-, Petrel, 217 is. 8d. per week. Electric, 212 6s. 10d. per week.

(3) Well-known firm of contractors, Lancashire. 5,000 miles per year about 16 miles per day One ton petrol. 15 cwt. electric, Running on the same Service with approximately equal loads. Difference in cost of operation 10s. per day in favour of eiedtrie, or about 8d. per miles A fewexamples like the above, taken from 'actual daily practice as recorded by the users, and outside . the influence altogether of either vehicle builders br battery makers, arc a great deal more to the point than mere calculations.—Yours faithfully, L. BROOKMAN

Examination Before Licensing.

The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR. '

[1807] Sir,—I believe that there is under discussion the question cif the advisability of examining an applicant for a driv i n g licence. Is • not this virtually done by an employer when engaging a man with this advantage to the employee that one employer's adverse opinion does not deprive the applicant of his chance of earning living? We do Oct want a new Government department set up, with a • host of officials and at a. great annual ex" pense, just to eliminate the bad dr i v e r.--Tours faithfully, S. J. BOND.


comments powered by Disqus