Better Basis for Bids Wanted
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'OUR leading article "No Idle Threat" of I January 29, suggests that the bids for transport units are not high enough.
I am not satisfied that this is correct, as the British Transport Commission are expecting more for units than they paid for them.
When the B.T.C. took over the vehicles, they calculated 20 per cent. per year off the price dew, plus betterment. This meant an average of £250 each in my case, for vehicles as well maintained as they are at present, plus spares and, in my case, buildings, with £70 per ton for unladen tonnage.
If you are suggesting that B.R.S. will sell at these figures you are wrong, as I based my bid on this basis, but have not obtained the unit, nor has it been sold. I would go so far as to suggest that unless bids are based on the figures given, plus at least 25 per cent., no one will get a unit.
The fact that a few small men, who probably do not know the answers, have bid foolishly, has made the Disposal Board fix high prices; but unless these are modified, not more than 10 per cent, of the large units will be sold.
I would point out that a buyer may have the unit for only 2-3 years before it is taken again at a price the people then in power may think fit to give, so to expect high bids is unfair. A far better way would be to take reasonable bids and make the levy adjust the difference, so that if it is taken back in a few years, the Government would help to bear the burden.
Preston. INTERESTED.
Poison In The Ear ?
THE last paragraph of your leader entitled "No Idle
I Threat," in your issue dated January 29, deplores the possibility of the British Transport Commission trying to poison the minds of users against those to whom transport units are being sold, and would even invoke the power of the present Government to prevent such a dastardly act.
Did the Press neglect any opportunity of injecting the same poison into the minds of users against nationalized transport and cannot I still hear the squeal of the Press when their liberty of expression was threatened?
Verily the Pot calls the Kettle black.
Lymm, Cheshire. J. R. GLANVILL.
Why Penalize "Attics " ?
IREAD with great interest F. W. Knight's series of articles "Why Buy a Trailer?" but I am rather surprised that, in the section dealing with legal anomalies (issue dated January 15), he did not mention the somewhat unfair load restrictions placed on articulated outfits.
Why should a lorry hauling an independent trailer be allowed an overall laden weight of 32 tons whilst an articulated outfit, even if it has four or five axles, be restricted to 22 tons?
The net result of this restriction is that development of the articulated 8-wheeler has been impeded, whilst the a24 articulated 10-wheeler, viz.: three-axled tractor with twoaxled semi-trailer, is practically unknown in this country. The articulated 10-wheeler is extremely popular in other countries, particularly the U.S.A., and its development should be encouraged in this country—not hindered by restrictive legislation.
It is also anomalous that there should be no overalllength limit for a lorry hauling an independent trailer, whilst an articulated vehicle used for normal purposes is restricted to 33 ft. in spite of its extreme manceuvrability. This overall-length Emit should be increased to 40 ft., and a further increased length allowed if the semi-trailer is of the self-tracking type.
The articulated vehicle also suffers unfairly under the Authorization of Special Types Order. This permits a gross laden weight of 150 tons for the vehicle or vehicles carrying the load. In the case of a tractor hauling an independent trailer, the, tractor is not a load-carrying vehicle and thus its weight need not be taken into account. However, the tractor portion of an articulated vehicle is carrying part of the load, and accordingly its weight counts as part of the permissible 150 tons'gross.
London, E.C.4. A. MARENBON, A.M.Inst.T., Technical and Sales Director, R. A. Dyson
and Co., Ltd.
Are Bus Drivers Inconsiderate ?
WITH regard to the letter from L. C. Caswell, entitled VT"Appeal To Bus Operators," which appeared in your issue dated January 29, I wish that he could come to Nottingham. If he did so he would soon see whether or not bus drivers there use their direction indicators.
It seems to me that they are seldom in the down position here, for even if an overtaking vehicle is halfway along the side of a bus, up goes the indicator and off it goes and the following vehicle will have to stop. To the bus driver, putting up the indicator means that he will start at once, even if there is something in front which will force him to swing out.
Trolleybus drivers are, to my idea, the worst offenders. These vehicles have such terrific acceleration, and most of them are 72-seaters with six wheels. They are all equipped with indicator arms, whereas most of the buses operated by the private companies, with the exception of Bartons, do not have them.
As to Mr. Caswell's dislike of bus drivers stopping their vehicles with the fronts swung away from the kerb, I would say that this is to obtain a clear view of what following vehicles are likely to do. Also it is much easier to steer a bus when it is in motion than when it is about to start—it is difficult to pull the steering wheel around and change gear at the same time.
However, this "swinging" practice does not seem to apply in Nottingham, for seldom does one find a trolley bus pulling into the kertv; most of them stop anywhere, even in the middle of the road. Perhaps this is a habit acquired by those drivers who came from the trams. I may add that I am a bus driver myself, employed by the Trent Motor Traction Co., Ltd. Each week I read your journal from cover to cover and find the road tests especially interesting.
Mapperley, Notts. S. ILLSLEY.