Memorandum re Steam Engines as Brakes.
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Local Government Board Will Review the Use and Construction Order in Relation to Accumulated Running Experience.
The Secretary, Local Government Board.
Sir,—I am deputed by the General Committee of the Commercial Motor Users Association, following a conversation which I recently had at the Board's office by appointment with one of the Assistant Secretaries (Mr. Jerred), to put down for your urgent consideration a memorandum in regard to the use of a reversible engine as a brake upon a heavy motorcar.
(I) The Motor Cars (Use and Construction) Order, 1904, by Article 11(4), provides :
" The Motor Car shall have two independent brakes in good working order, and of such efficiency that the application of either to the Motor Car shall cause two of its wheels on the same axle to be so held that the wheels shall be effectually prevented from revolving, or shall have the same effect in stopping the Motor Car as if such wheels were so held."
(II) The Association asks that the following or equivalent addition may be made thereto, viz., to read on : " Provided that in the case of a Motor Car propelled by steam and having an engine capable of being reversed such engine when reversed shall be deemed an independent brake and be treated as one of the two independent brakes for the purpose of this article." (III) In support of this recommendation, I beg to advance the following points for consideration by the Board and its engineering advisers :
(a) In 1904, there was relatively little experience on the road with steam-propelled heavy motorcars.
(b) Since the year 1904, steam wagons and tractors under five tons in weight unladen have come into increasing use, particularly in the counties of Cheshire, Lancashire, London and Yorkshire.
(c) There are, now, upwards of 2300 such steam-propelled heavy motorcars (wagons and tractors) upon which only one frictional brake is provided, and in respect of which both makers and owners believe the requirements of the Order to be met by the independent use of the reversing of the engine so as to provide an effective second brake.
(d) Such braking is in effect reliable, and it has been shown to be so over running experience all through the country which has—since the year 1904—exceeded 80 millions of miles.
(e) More than seven years of continuous experience with these heavy motorcars, steam wagons and steam tractors which are fitted with steam reversing gear (an engine fitted with Stephenson link or other reversing motion), and upon which only one additional friction brake is provided, has shown that there has not been any greater number of brake failures than with other lorries and tractors fitted with a second friction brake, and it is contended that the common and everyday use of the " reverse " by the drivers of these steam-propelled heavy motorcars, with attendant immunity from serious brake failures, has proved that the general use of the reversible steam engine as the second independent brake now justifies its admission as one of the two independent brakes within the meaning of the Order.
(f) In spite of this accumulated evidence of safety in use, the county police of Lancashire
and/or borough police at Bolton, Bury, Heywood, Radcliffe, Whitefield and other Lancashire towns, have recently been issuing summonses, and have secured convictions, against owners and drivers of steam-propelled heavy motorcars so fitted and equipped, i.e., with only one friction brake, and there are at the present moment many cases pending, or adjourned, for the decision of your Board to be reached in the matter. (g) The construction of the Order by some magistrates, to exclude the reversal of a reversible steam engine from reckoning as one of the two independent brakes named in it, threatens to impose grave expense upon owners, hardship upon drivers, and loss to many important sections of the commercial, industrial and shipping communities.
(h) Heavy fines have been and are still being imposed, but further very serious losses will be involved if the Order cannot be so amended as to admit, clearly, that the reversal of a reversible steam engine is admissible as a brake.
(i) The case of Willmott versus Southwell, upon which the magistrates are acting, and particulars of which have been already handed to you by me (under cover of my letter dated the aath June, 1912), concerned a heavy motorcar with a nonreversible petrol engine. (j) To add a second friction brake to the 2300 steam-propelled heavy motorcars now in use in the United Kingdom would cost not less than £69,000, whilst, over and above that sum, the loss of earnings to the owners, at the low estimate of only four days out of service per vehicle, would be not less than 227,600.
(IV) It is submitted that there is now sufficient road experience amply to justify the desired amendment, and sound reasons for the Board to safeguard owners against unnecessary expenditure upon structural alterations and loss due to the compulsory laying-up of vehicles.
(V) The parallel of practice on goods trains in railway engineering is cited in support of the claims that the use of the reverse gear should be admitted as an independent brake, and particular stress is laid upon the fact that in the case of railway practice, in spite of the lesser adhesion between the metal wheel and the metal rail, such method of braking is effective for greater speeds and loads than are required in road traffic, and that these greater speeds and loads are more than the equivalent of the steeper gradients of common roads.
(VI) The attention of the Board and its advisers is also particularly directed to the fact that the Locomotives Act of 1898, which concerns traction engines, behind which engines it is customary to haul three heavy trucks, does not impose any regulation which is intended to require the use of a second friction brake on the locomotive, and that tractionengine makers and drivers are allowed by law to rely upon the reverse gear of the engine for braking purposes. (VII) It is suggested, alternatively, that the desired amendment might be introduced to Article XVI of the Heavy Motor Oar Order, 1904, as a further exception to the application of the Motor Cars (Use and Construction) Order.
I am, Sir, Yours faithfully,
(Signed) E. SHRAPNELL SMITH. 7-15, Rosebery Avenue, E.C.
9th July, 1912.