AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Traffic and Design Problems Discussed

13th May 1955, Page 40
13th May 1955
Page 40
Page 41
Page 43
Page 40, 13th May 1955 — Traffic and Design Problems Discussed
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?

DIGESTS of the two papers given at the Public Transport Association conference, 'Some Traffic Problems Affecting Fares" by Mr. T. G. Davies, M.B.E., and " The Trend of Public Service Vehicle Design" by Mr. V. W. Pilkington, M.B.E., M.Ing., M.1.Mech.E., were published in this journal last week.

Ft was generally agreed by the delegates that each paper was excellent in its field.

in the discussion on the first, the chairman drew particular attention to the conclusions arrived at, they were in •a new form and provided a most useful record.

air. A. Donovan, J.P. referred to the difficulty in obtaining crews. This caused serious cuts in services. He thought men with five years' service should be paid extra and a little more after 10 years, as they were the best servants. Drivers and conductors should be respected and fare delinquents taken to court.

Aid. J. H. Whitaker, J.P., claimed that bus rides were being sold at only 50 per cent, over the cost in 1939, yet the price of raw materials, etc., was over 200 per cent. higher. In his undertaking the rise in total costs was 104 per cent. It was ridiculous that fuel should be taxed at 250 per cent.

Mr. G. H. Pulfrey referred to the impossibility of speeding-up services and the trouble due to loss of passengers. His undertaking had 19 per cent. fewer in the past she years. Something should be done to attract the cyclists back to the buses. He had good experience of one-man operation on an experimental vehicle and found that the uniflow system was working well. Even with two doors and on city service, the vehicle achieved the same speed as normal types; moreover, the staff liked being amongst the passengers.

a6 He had had applications to change to one-man operated routes.

Mr. T. L. C. Strange said that with every increase in fares, more season tickets were bought. In two years, the increase had been 107 per cent. Large employers took out seasons in bulk. These were used also for pleasure and shopping. His undertaking . had not. been successful in limiting such avail' Mr. N. H. Dean believed in many stops if they brought traffic. Each extra person meant lid. per mile. He referred to inadequate clearance under bridges and mentioned that in the case of a new road, the local authority had asked what the bus operators would pay if the level was lowered by 4 in under a bridge, , Mr. R. G. James asked how local traffic could be segregated from longdistance, running side by side and charging the same fares. He favoured a separate long-distance station. In his area, evening traffic had never recovered since the black-out. Publicity was of great importance, because regular riders on one service knew little about the others.

alle W. Mullen pointed to the difficulty of the five-day week in connection with bus operation. The 44hour week was a headache—it was difficult to attract the younger people, who, in industry, could lay down tools at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday.

Mr. D. M. Sinclair, C.B.E., said that our transport was the greatest indirect dollar earner in the country. . Nothing mentioned in the paper would contribute more than a reduction of fuel tax and the provision of an efficient road system.

Replying, Mr. T. G. Davies said that he agreed with the principle of awards for long service, but representatives of the employees did not favour this system. He also thought that shortdistance season tickets had been abused.

The hordes of cyclists foemed a big problem, for they caused chaos in bad weather when they invaded the buses. He also had found that staff liked being with the public and even asked for " barriers" to be removed. He believed that beaded buses should not stop so often. Sometimes three services could be run over one road. He actually ran local and limited-stop types in this way, but he confined duplicates to particular destinations. He did not agree that termini should be separated, a bus terminus should be at a central point to permit passengers to transfer as they pleased.

Opening the discussion on Mr. Pilkington's paper, Mr. E. L. Taylor suggested that some of the many papers in the archives of the P.T.A. should be printed as a volume, as they dealt with landmarks in the progress of the

industry.-He thought that this paper fell into that category.

Mr. J. H. Cansdale asked: "Have you never tried electric power?" In 1905 the motorbus was a curiosity, whilst the trolleybus was a p.s.v. before 1900 and still is. Reference had been made to electric braking, that on the, trolleybus was something which the motorbus should aim at achieving.

Mr. F. G. Parnell visualized the bus of 50 years hence as having a small gas turbine driving a hydraulic pump which would charge an accumulator to 5,000 lb. per sq. in. and drive the vehicle by a small hydraulic motor, possibly through a gear reduction. Braking would be from the motor to the pump and thence to the reservoir.

Mr. G. H. Pulfrey referred to the „resistance to innovatias, there was some amongst themselves, much more from the staff and rather less from the public. Good but unconventional vehicles had not received the support expected. Regarding the 30-ft. doubledecker, he asked how the revenue would be gathered if longer and bigger vehicles were used.

Rear Engine Favoured

He applauded the idea of the rear engine as transferring some of the weight and lowering the floor. He would also like door control and a middle exit. In their present experiments with twodoor control and uniflow, the public were most helpful. This applied also to one-man operation. The passengers would come with their money ready in their hands. The trolleybus had many good points for short city service, and brake facings lasted 200,000 miles.

Mr. W. M. Little said that few operators today contemplated separated body and chassis. Similar construction for the double-decker should be considered. The fuel tax had the effect of distorting engineering design, it forced an entirely separate vehicle for the home market. He suggested a common integral frame for 30-ft. single-deckers and low double-deckers, with no separate highand low-bridge varieties.

Mr. D. M. Sinclair. C.B.E., thought that as we were moving into the atomic age, a collector on a vehicle would be able to pick up current and drive an electric motor built into each wheel. He was not yet " sold " on small engines, he did not like them. Before long it would be necessary to find an automatic, or at least a semi-automatic, type of transmission.

He did not expect much change in the braking system in the immediate future, but thought it worthwhile inves tigating tht effectiveness of the disc brake. He expected to see independent suspension for all wheels and powersteering before long. For drivers' comfort, the regulations should not require an opening windscreen, greater visibility could then be provided. He did not favour the engine at the. rear and could see no virtue in having it there, away from the driver, who could not hear it. It involved difficulty of control, an awkward transmission line. and was vulnerable to accidental damage.

Mr. B. Goodfellow thought that they would soon see something quite unusual in coach design. He referred to passenger comfort rather than to chassis. He pleaded for better accessibility. It was quite a job to remove an engine. He would like to see frontwheel-drive, particularly on coaches, and arranged so that by lifting the vehicle and undoing a major part, the whole unit could be exchanged. Exhaust brakes had proved satisfactory. They gave a steadying effect and the drivers liked them, Mr. E. V. Dyson said engine life had increased tremendously and engines were running 250,000 miles with little or no attention, the limiting factor being the valves. He asked for the development of more efficient air filtration. He was sorry that the centrifugal clutch seemed to have vanished.

Mr. Pilkington, in his reply. apologized 'for not referring to the marked development which had taken place in connection with trolly/buses. With regard to the double-decker on two axles, if they had a block dimens;on for one vehicle, he did not see why it should not be available for any vehicle operating on the highway. He could not understand why the one-piece windscreen was not permitted. Every vehicle in the U.S.A. had it, and the weather conditions there were worse than ours. He thought that the underfloor or rear engine gave the maximum accessibility obtainable without drastic redesign.

Regarding the future, we had had only 50 years or so with the i.e. engine of the present type, and possibly something different might come. He would not discuss engine life or the merits of small and large units because he thought these were matters of personal opinion. He agreed that we had been remiss in not paying more attention here to air filtration. The centrifugal clutch was by no means dead and it might develop into an excellent type. drivers and their standing as ambassadors of the company. Practically all the drivers were employed before nationalization and applied for jobs when B.R.S. units were purchased.

Mr. Wall described relations with B.R.S. as "happy." Traffic is regularly interchanged on a reciprocal-trading basis, and if • one of the concern's vehicles is short of a backload the driver calls at the nearest B.R.S. depot. Mr. Wall was in favour of B.R.S. retaining a fleet of reasonable size and believed that this would stabilize rates.

A much better spirit between B.R.S. and private-enterprise operators was reported by another trader in the Bristol Users in the Highbridge and Bridgwater districts appeared to be well satisfied with private-enterprise service. When the 10 vehicles operated by Mr. H. H. Major, of Highbridge, were nationalized in 1949, together with his premises, he accepted the post of B.R.S. depot superintendent and continued to carry the same traffic for his old customers.

When the vehicles and premises were put up for disposal, he was joined by Mr. H. Brown, formerly of Messrs. H. Brown, Burnham-on-Sea, to form E. and A. Major and Sons (Transport), Ltd. Tenders were successful, and the concern now operate 20 vehicles, 17 of which have a total carrying capacity of 62 tons, compared with 42 tons.

I first met Mr. Bown five years ago, when the threat of nationalization was hanging over his head, and it was gratifying to find that his concern was one of those which have "regained the same traffic and the same customers, only more so."

And Mr. Bown said that he was wiser for his experience with B.R.S., having become versed in documentation and statistical analysis.

Traffic carried by the Bown fleet includes preserves, tiles, machinery and light equipment. The main runs are to London and Liverpool, and shortdistance deliveries are made to centres in Somerset, Cornwall and Devon. Most of the backloads are collected from other private hauliers on a reciprocal-trading basis, the scope for them being described by Mr. Bown as far greater than before nationalization.


comments powered by Disqus