AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE FOUR-TONNER DISPLACES THE THREE.

13th April 1920, Page 20
13th April 1920
Page 20
Page 20, 13th April 1920 — THE FOUR-TONNER DISPLACES THE THREE.
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 "The Inspector."

MANY OF THE readers of The Commercial Motor will, no doubt, recall a series of articles which appeared in this journal, some years ago now, at the time when, with what has since proved, to he considerable foresight, the Mechanical Transport Committee of the War Office—as thetonly M.T. authority of the Government was then known— took stew which, if they did nothing else, settled upon a general type of lorry chassis whriclait,was then thought would prove to be of the maximum uae to the country in the emergency of war. Since then the war has happened;eof course, and those who were responsible for framing the outline specification— and after all it was very little more—which produced the modern four-tonner, i.e., the three-ton subsidy model, have more Uhan justified their efforts. It is true that the 'Original idea was to standardize two types, which it was.hoped would not only serve the country as a fine peservoir•of vehicles for civilian use, but which, additionally, would meet the requirements of the military aauthorities, as and when the need arose. The lighterrmodel never caught on, butathe supposition that civilian users would readily purchase a four-ton subsidy model for which (when the war was over),a considerably increased cost would have to be asked, proved to be an incorrect one.

The Three-tanner Favourite in 1914.

At theetime when the War Department produced its first subsidy plans the favourite model with users was that known as the three-tonner—the type suitable for carrying a net load of three tons, making due allowance for an ordinary type of body as fitted to a chassis. That three-tonner was a lighter machine than the heavier one of the aubsidynnodels, the latter having verrnearly another ton of.uaeful load capacity in the civilian sense. It was, then, pretty generally held that the fonr-tonner was too large, too heavy, and too expensive for the naore commontforms of transport use, and so' definite was this,opinion that the' number of subsidy wagons which was actually sold to ,chitIlianiusers'prier to the war was a very small one indeed. The reserve which was to have been built up in this way was, as a matter of

fact, an insignificant one when war broke out. .

Small Reserve of Subsidy Models in 1914.

The counttar had to depend on the commandeering of all sorts and conditions of machines, without any regard whatever to their standardization, or their types. But tho-action of the Government had.had thisernost commendable result. The principal makers, or, at any rate. ,the .majority of them, were, in August, 1914, already provided with complete and thoroughly worked-out, sets of designs for the production of the standardized types required by the State. The lighter machine, designed by the War Office to carry 30 ewt.‘of military•loa,d, never proved very practicable, and, indeed, was, after a few months, discarded by the military authorities. But with the heavier models, with their three tons of military load, the case was different. .

W.D. Bought All Types of Four-tonners.

• The call, immediately after the outbreak of war, was practically milimited for supplies of the fourformer, and, in particular, Leylands, Thornycrofts, Karriers, Dennis, Hallfords, and subsermently, with slight modifications, Commer Cars, Allaions, A.E.C., and a few other make; including the Swiss and British Berna, were acquired in very large numbers indeed. Now, at the end of the war—and mercifully e34 at some distance from the end of it, we find that the four-tonner as a practical vehicle, after all, has proved to be a thoroughly suitable machine for a very great variety of trades.

Four-tonner Comes Into Its Own.

It is hardly any exaggeration to say that, in all but exceptional circumstances, the four-tormer is preferred by the average user and haulier who has to move loads of considerable moment. So that there is little doubt that, whenever there is any prospect of the Government launching a more modern edition of the subsidy scheme, the four-tonner would, after all, prove to have f numberless supporters as purchasers in contradistinction to the almost universal demand which held some years ago fox the threetonner—the lighter model. There is, however, little likelihood that the authorities will find it necessary. for many a long day to come to stimulate the building up of any considerable reserve of mechanical transport. units, suitable for war service, by means of any subsidy., or similar scheme. Although the day will undoubtedly come when even the stocks at Slough and the other large accumulations of war-servicereturned machines will have been absorbed, and when a large portion of them will have disappeared, the Government will then have once,again to frame some co-ordinating measure for ensuring adequate supplies of standardized vehicles. That day, however, is not yet.

How Far Should Standardization Go?

In connection with this question of subsidy vehicles, there is jusf.one other point that is worth a moment's thought, and that is the question as to exactly how useful the decision has proved to standardize, .,as between4rnaker and maker, certain units of different machines, the necessity of being able to -interchange, shall we say, a J.arrier'radiator on to a Thornycroft chassis, or a Leyland wheel on to a Hallford axle. It would he interesting to learn from some of the men who were engaged on active M.T. ,service as to how much use was this provision, and in how many cases ;such substitutes were ever. made. It is certainly of vital importance that the M.T. authorities should not be hindered by the employment of more than one type of any make of machine unless it be for radically different loads ; but the practical necessity of securing interchangeability between different makes has, at any rate in the Writer's opinion, not been fully proved on war service; it is more likely actually to exist for conditions less acute.

Standardize the Control.

There is no doubt much to be said for standardization of control, hut then this would be an excellent result to achieve for civilian purposes, and there is just the question as to whether some of the societies and associations -which are very busy on. the, standardization of little bits and pieces of the chassis, some of which are likely,to prove of very little value, and to he disregardedaover andover again, would be better occupied were they to turn their attention to schemes whichawould enable drivers?to hop from one machine to another and to control them without any anxiety as to their lack of knowledge of the way in which to handle the different types. A Thornycroft driver, as it is, is quite at home, as a, rule, on a Leyland subsidy wagon, and a man accustomed to the wheel of a. Kamer can take charge of a Dennis without any difficulty. So that is something that has been gained from which we might learn a lesson.


comments powered by Disqus