AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

A Dennis Triumph in London.

13th April 1911, Page 7
13th April 1911
Page 7
Page 7, 13th April 1911 — A Dennis Triumph in London.
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?

There was a lively incident, during a late sitting of the London County Council last week, when a report by the Fire Brigade Committe, recommending the acceptance of an offer by Dennis Bros., Ltd., of Guildford, to supply four additional petrol motor fire-engines in substitution of four steam motor en• gineS,. for £3,710 was considered. The report was first presented to the Council on the 14th Marchsee this journal, 16th Meath, page 39. Mr. O. H. Hume ruse to ask a question of the 'Chairman of the Committee. His remarks were received somewhat derisively, whereupon Mr. Hume said he supposed members thought he was speaking in the interests of another firm. He denied it. Mr. Hume's question—a very-long one—was direeted to eliciting the number of breakdowns that had occurred to motor fire-engines and other details as to efficiency. The answer of the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Jocelyn Brandon) is clear without our setting out the question in full.

Mr. Brandon said the petrol fire-engines supplied by Messrs. Dennis Bros. had been under repair 11 times since the 31st January, the date of the first delivery, and on four occasions the engine, affected was disabled. One breakdown occurred on the 3rd March, necessitating a new back axle, which was supplied and fitted, and the engine was ready foi service the next day ; a driving star was broken on the 4th March, and was replaced the same day ; orL the 21st March, a defect was discovered in the waterpump, but, owing to a difficulty in locating the defect, it was not finally made good until the 28th March ; on the 27th March a new back axle became necessary, and the engine was fitted with this and was ready for service the next day.

The first comparative tests were made in November and December, 1909, when the different types at engines were tested with various nozzles and lengths of hose. The different types of pumps had been checked by subsequent. results. On the question " What are the respective efficiencies of the turbine engines and of the reciprotrating pump engines in use by the brigade ? " Mr. Brandon said the overall efficiency was 51 per cent. in the case of Messrs. Dennis Brother's turbine engine and 67 per cent. with Messrs. Merryweather'e reciprocating pump engine, but the turbine pump was capable of discharging through a much larger range of 't clime than the reciprocating pump, and was capnble of lifting water more quickly and from a greater depth. This, it was considered, more than compensated for the reduced efficiency at a given pressure. As thc result of actual experience (this in response to an inquiry as to the. data the Committee had for saying petrol engines were more efficient and less costly to maintain than steam motor engines), the comparative annual cost of maintenance had been found to be :—

passed over several well-known firms whose tenders were lower than that of Dennis Brothers.. It was an open secret that the Committee was thinking of converting wholesale the horse and steam engines to another type of power, but, when the new machines had only been in commission a short time, it was too soon to ask the Council to give an order for four more motors without competition, and at the same price as before. Nine months was a very-long time in this business. The Committee led the Council to believe the question was one of steam versus petrol. It was not; it was between reciprocal and centrifugal pumps, and engineers were a good deal exercised as to which was the more efficient. He advised the employment of an expert advisory engineer, for it was most important to get the best type of engine, and not to place the Council in the hands of cne firm. The Hon. H. Lygon, ex-Chairman of the Fire Brigade Committee, declared that the particular kind of motor under consideration had no reason to fear competition with any other. It was true these motors had only been in possession of the L.C.C. a few months, hut the results obtained by other brigades, were always available to London Fire Brigade officers. This firm had a large clientele amongst fire brigades, and in every single case where they had been tried the motors had given the highest satisfaction. Practically all the breakdowns which had occurred had been put right the same or the next day, and the experience of the Council with other firms in the matter. of promptness of repairs had not been nearly so satisfactory as in the case of Dennis Brothers. He hoped the Council would authorize the purchase of some more of these extremely-satisfactory machines. Mr. Edward Smith also hoped the Ccuneil would pass the tecommendation, " notwithstanding the special pleading of the mover of the reference back.He deprecated the way this matter had been brought forward—it might seriously damage a firm that had clone good work for the Council. Mr. Hume's queetions had been framed in a way that made it exceedingly difficult to reply in a way that would not leave a wrong imp res,don. The Fire Brigade Committee had always realized the necessity of having fire appliances of the very-best quality, always endeavouring at the same time to go to a reasonably-cheap market. Hithe!'to. the supply of these appliances had been very limited,anti some firms had an idea that they had a prescriptive right to all the orders of the L.C.C. Now, however, several firms had got to know the Council's requirements and were tendering. Without reflecting on other firms, in this particular case the course adopted by the Committee was the best one, because a special article was required.

The reference back was lost by 36 votes to 18, and the recommendation of the Committee was approved.


comments powered by Disqus