AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

HOUSE-REFUS1 COLLECTION

8th March 1932, Page 90
8th March 1932
Page 90
Page 91
Page 92
Page 93
Page 90, 8th March 1932 — HOUSE-REFUS1 COLLECTION
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?

BY MODE N MEANS

Simple and Ambitious Designs of Refuse-collection Vehicle that Are Now Offered on the British Market

THE diversity of designs of body for refusecollection vehicles which municipal officers have had an opportunity for inspecting and considering during the past year or two has produced doubt as to the best methods of dealing with the task of house-refuse collection. All are agreed that mechanical vehicles are necessary, except in the most unusual circumstances, but it is as regards the type of body employed that ideas have so widely diverged. Bodywork, therefore, will receive major consideration in this article.

After a considerable period, however, in which practically e very type has undergone tests in one or more parts of the country, a general impression tends to be formed that the most costly a n d complicated types of body are not so suitable for average British conditions as those which, whilst being simple, light and easily maintained, incorporate satisfactory measures for preventing the escape of dust, etc.

Despite the spreading of our towns, both large and small, this is a country in which there are many rural and semi-rural areas of scattered residences, the needs of which are cared for by local authorities having at their disposal but modest financial resources. Thanks to the study which commercial-vehicle manufacturers and bodybuilders have given to this problem, rural councils of this kind are able now to obtain low-priced vehicles incorporating standard chassis and either dualpurpose bodies or straightforward low-loading refuse collection bodies, which serve their purposes admirably. Dual-purpose vehicles, used on some days for carrying road material, coke, etc., and on other days for houseto-house refuse collection, are becoming increasingly popular.

In certain cases, as with some Bedford vehicles, the superstructure incorporating the refuse covers can be quickly lifted off when the vehicle is to be used for lorry work. The Bedford standard vehicle has a capacity of 7 cubic yds. and the price has recently / been reduced to £385. Three aluminiumpanelled chainoperated lids are fitted at each side.

Still simpler vehicles incorporate canvas covers, but these are far more effective than were the canvas covers of past years, being usually arranged to roll up or down so quickly that the dustmen are encouraged to make full use of them.

A good feature incorporated in many of the simplest bodies is the arrangement of hinged side flaps to the body, so as to give a variable loading height according to the extent to which the vehicle is loaded. Another valuable feature, and one which applies to all orthodox refuse collectors, is the arrangement of the body plan so that it tapers towards the front. This facilitates end

tipping more than might be expected and very often eliminates the need for employing men with shovels to free the material when dumping.

The most popular kind of refuse collector in this country at present is that incorporating proper shutters equipped for hand or foot operation, or a combination of the two. It may be said that to combine foot opera tion by treadle with assistance by hand is to gain the approval of the dustman himself, the reason being that the hand grip affords him a better balance at the moment when he is emptying the bin. Most treadles operate downwards and are reasonably satisfactory, but in this respect the type of treadle employed on A.T.-Ford machines, marketed by the Allan Taylor Engineering and Manufacturing Co., London, and that

F34

adopted on some S.D. Freighters, well deserve mention, because the treadle moves through an arc downward and inward, giving just the motion which is found easiest for the operator.

It has been a surprise to some manufacturers to find that even unbalanced shutters have found favour with municipal transport managers. It cannot be denied, however, that the men are tempted to leave them open. It is, in any case, essential that unbalanced shutters should act quickly and with little effort, and a good example is afforded by the B. and E. patented spring doors, made by Bromilow and Edwards, Ltd., Bolton, another being seen in the hand-operated folding lids produced by Tuke and Bell, Ltd. A simple kind of cover, held closed against springs, has been successfully applied on some Albion vehicles.

Of the mechanical types which close automatically, satisfactory examples are those marketed by F.M. Motors, Ltd., and the Allan Taylor Engineering and Manufacturing Co., both of London ; Shelvoke and Drewry, Ltd. Letchworth; the '

Eagle Engineering Co., Ltd. Ltd., and a number of other concerns. With regard to the Eagle design, the canvas side flaps are excellent

for keeping in the dust. Roller shutters, of wood or steel, such as made by G. Brady and Co., Ancoats, Manchester, are fitted by some manufacturers, including the Shelvoke and Drewry concern.

Some companies construct bodies with high sides and employ canvas or strip-rubber curtains, the advantage being that they call for no operation by the men. The rubber-strip principle has been successfully applied by Richard Garrett and Sons. Ltd., of Leiston.

Rigid sliding covers are used on some vehicles, a notable example being the type adopted by Morris Commercial Cars, Ltd., Birmingham. This company offers standard chassis for refuse-collection work.

An interesting attempt to give complete and positive trapping of the dust has recently been introduced by W. P. Butterfield, Ltd., of Shipley. In 'this case, the bin is inverted on to a circular opening in an outer shutter and, when this is pushed towards the centre of the vehicle, the opening registers with a port in an inner shutter. Mr. H. Neaverson, the cleansing superintendent to Huddersfield Corporation, is the inventor and the device can be made as a canopy for converting existing open vehicles.

'Another device of a similar kind is the Em-Em shutter which for some time now has been offered in this country by Mr. John Sherwood, of London. The Eagle Engineering 0o., Ltd., has equipped several rotating-container bodies with this type of shutter and it can be fitted on to a cover which is movable fore and aft.

The Eagle company also is responsible for the production of a special bin-carrying trailer incorporating a rotating frame, of which details have frequently. appeared in this journal in the past. The bins are taken away to be emptied and washed out.

Another concernthat has provided means for washing the bins is W. and G. du Cros, Ltd., of Loudon. On this company's refuse vehicle a cylindrical tank, containing disinfecting solution, and having a central sprayer and valve gear, is fitted on a platform behind the cab and in front of the refuse container. When the inverted bin is placed on a rest inside the tank, an engine-driven pump is brought into action, spraying the solution forcefully into the bin. Whilst the device involves the operator mounting three steps on to the platform, it is most hygienic and certainly has aroused interest. • The Kleenaway system, marketed by County Commercial Cars, Ltd., London, is an interesting departure. Paper-bag liners are. fitted into the dustbins and, when full, are tipped into a light carrier, from which they are emptied into the vehicle.

The Pagefield system with which engineers have been familiar in the past allows for the • use of horsedrawn low-loadingcontainers which are raised by ramps on to a motor lorry for conveyance to the • dump. Any kind of dust-trapping cover can

be fitted to the containers. In addition, the manufacturer—Walker Brothers (Wigan), Ltd.—has recently introduced a low-loading refuse collector for either horse or motor traction, 'which is fully enclosed and which the men are intended to enter by way of three easy steps at the rear, depositing the refuse in front of a partition which can be moved rearwards without any. difficulty at all as the vehicle is filled.

A system similar in respect of the movable partition, although not incorporating the idea of keeping the whole operation under cover, is that which Tuke and Bell, Ltd., of Lichfield, has for some time sponsored. In this case, also, the men mount the vehicle by steps at the rear.

Considerable interest has been accorded the more complicated dust-trapping bodies made by Continental concerns, notably the Mercedes-Benz, Kuka Faun and Norrbacken, but so far the simpler designs have received stronger support in this Country.

Some difficulty is experienced in the collection of refuse in particularly narrow streets, and for this purpose narrow two-wheeled trailers, such as those made by the Eagle concern, are specially useful. The Karrier Colt three-wheeled vehicle, which has a capacity of 6 cubic yds., also has proved extremely valuable for this class of work.

As regards the controversies which obtain as to the different mechanical means that are available for the traction of refuse collectors—petrol engine, oil engine and battery-electric outfit—these find their answer in local circumstances, many classes of which are referred to elsewhere in this issue.


comments powered by Disqus