Good Maintenance is Good Business'
Page 30
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MEETING HEARS ABOUT G.V.9s AND SPARES
GIVE us a standard of efficiency that we can work to in our maintenance —and then we can do something about it. That was the call put almost in despair—but, perhaps significantly, by a haulier from another traffic area—when a record crowd of 370 goods vehicle operators attended a meeting organized by the regional maintenance committee in Newcastle upon Tyne on Monday. Speaking at the meeting were: the Northern Licensing Authority, Mr. J. A. T. Hanlon; the T.R.T.A. national secretary, Mr. H. R. Featherstone, and the R.H.A. committee secretary, Mr. G. H. Mitchell. Also on the panel to answer questions with the speakers was M.o.T. Northern area mechanical engineer Col. H. M. V. N. Smith. Mr. R. Clifford, a national vice-chairman of the R.H.A. and chairman of the area maintenance committee, was in the chair.
Opening the meeting Mr. Clifford reminded those present that the regional maintenance committee was formed in December, 1959, with the object of promoting "by encouragement and persuasion" improved standards of goods vehicle maintenance. "To maintain a vehicle is obligatory ", he said. G.V.9s were not just a recent innovation.
Mr. Hanlon said that much had been achieved by the committee but in spite of all its work there had been public unrest about the state of commercial vehicles. Of some 70,000 goods vehicles licensed in the Northern area about 8 per cent had been examined by .Ministry examiners in recent years. The blitzes had merely highlighted what they all knew was going on, he said. It was significant that many of those who incurred a prohibition notice had not attended the committee's meetings.
"It is quite wrong to leave it to a particular driver to report a defect ", said Mr. Hanlon. "He can do all sorts of things to overcome the deficiencies of his vehicle." A Ministry examiner took something like 15 min. to check a vehicle; there ought to be a man in a workshop who could give that time to the vehicle.
Mr. Hanlon said many C-licensed operators thought a G.V.9 was punishment in itself—" Of course it is not ". They could be called before a magistrate or before the Licensing Authority.
Mr. Featherstone criticized misrepresentation and sensationalism by the Press in reporting the vehicle checks. If the checks continued, with attendant publicity, it would force the Ministry to take drastic measures which would affect both the inefficient and efficient operator. "Every operator who gets a G.V.9 is inviting trouble not only for himself but also for the whole of road transport he said.
He called for a switch tooreventive maintenance and said thy Ministry should take the positive action of ensuring a A28 vehicle was maintained, instead of the negative action of catching a vehicle out. Proper -maintenance facilities should be a condition of a carrier's licence.
The T.R.T.A. had offered to set up a vehicle inspection scheme and was going ahead with the formation of a pilot scheme regardless of whether or not the Ministry took up the Association's suggestions. It would be of particular value to the small operator by relieving him of a heavy burden of maintenance. Perhaps once a quarter, or according to mileage, engineers would check a vehicle, list the necessary work and then—when the operator had made his own arrangements for the work to be done—the T.R.T.A. engineer would inspect to ensure the work recommended had been carried out. When pressed by a questioner, Mr. Featherstone said the cost might be around £10 a vehicle per annum.
Mr. G. H. Mitchell put forward the maxim: "Good maintenance is good business." He praised the work of the area maintenance committees and refuted the suggestion that they were preaching to the converted.
He said an analysis of the vehicle faults listed on G.V.9 immediate prohibitions issued to R.H.A. members during the first 13 two-day checks showed approximately 86 per cent of those affected had road spring defects.
The analysis showed that 45 per cent had steering defects, of which 20 per cent included steering boxes loose on the chassis, and 40 per cent had too much play. "But ", he said, "some vehicles allow for play, so here we are in the hands of the examiners. I think this varies from one examiner to another—
there ought to be some rule of thumb laid down." Some 30 per cent of the prohibited vehicles had brake defects (20 per cent of these having defective hoses or fluid leaks); nearly 20 per cent had prop-shaft coupling defects; only about 10 per cent emitted excess smoke.
In reply to a question about braking standards for non-plated vehicles, Col. Smith said there were no specific standards; it was .left to the examiner. Two hauliers, however, said that in the East Midlands examiners worked to a 50 per cent footbrake efficiency and 30 per cent handbrake efficiency on loaded vehicles.
"If that is true, then practically every vehicle tested would get a G.V.9 ", said Mr. Featherstone.
Asked what constituted the correct shackle-pin standard—some were condemned when they appeared to have many more months of wear left—Col. Smith said not even manufacturers could agree amongst themselves on this. Mr. Mitchell added that one big manufacturer permitted a 10 thou, tolerance on a shackle pin when new; it could be in. when in use. An agreed tolerance must be laid down, he emphasized.
Told that many operators had trouble in obtaining spares, Col. Smith replied he had already reported On the shortage of spares for passenger vehicles to the Ministry. The Ministry was in a good position to bring pressure to bear and Col. Smith asked .for anyone suffering from a spares problem to let Mr. W. Mills (T.R.T.A. northern division secretary, and secretary to the maintenance committee) know. "I'll certainly take it from there ", promised Col. Smith.
Mr. Mitchell also asked members to get in touch with the R.H.A. when spares were in short supply.