OPINIONS and QUERIES A Chance for British Makers.
Page 60
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Moron.
[34581 Sir,-1 cannot find that any British-made tractor is being used in India, whereas American-built industrial machines can be seen at work on the streets of Calcutta and Bombay.
I am writing to ask you to be good enough to give the following details of my requirements to any home manufacturer who may be interested in haulage on the "Rutway," a new method of transportation on either wooden or concrete rails, the guiding flange being on the rail itself and not on the wheels as with the railway locomotive, the carriage and the wagon, so that the Rutway train can be taken out of the Rut-track and run on the common highway, all Rutway vehicles having solid-rubber tyres.
The Rutway has received the essential approval of the Railway Board, the body responsible for the safe and economical working of the railways of this country, and so far the power unit has been an American tractor, the gauge of which corresponds to that of the Indian gauge of 3 ft. 31 ins., the exact dimensions being as follow : Gauge of rear wheel, measured from the inside of steel portion, 41 ins. ; that of the front wheel 43 ins., but making the gauge the same in both instances has been done without any difficulty.
On the road (fairly good) with modern trailers on rubber-tyreci wheels equipped with good bearings, the tractor hauls 15 tons net load_ On the metre-gauge wooden Rutway this machine hauls 50 tons at 15 m.p.h. and its price is 3,100 rupees at any Indian port. It runs for 10 miles on one gallon of kerosene oil costing from 10 to 14 annas. British machines will be given preference in the future, should performance and price not offer too wide a margin compared with the foreign tractor, hence my venturing to trouble you in this matter.
I am about to enter into a transport contract with the Government of a large province in India, to build 89 miles of wooden metre-gauge Rutways here and there. For this work I require 20 suitable tractors adaptable to running on the wooden rails as well as on those of concrete, but this is only the first instalment of Rutway construction, as some 4,400 miles are under consideration all over the country, also in Ceylon and Burmah.
Bombay. RUT WAY.
The Case for the Railways.
The Eclitqr, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3459] Sir,—After the tremendous fuss they have made during the past few years, it is astonishing to read in your issue of June 30th that Mr. A. W. Arthurton claims that the railway companies have no cause to complain of the cost incurred in the upkeep of their tracks B42 • In also erroneously claiming that railway rates average only 60 per cent, higher than pre-war Mr. Arthurton takes little stock of the fact that on many of the most vital commodities of industry, such as coal, rates still average over 100 per cent, higher—a factor which is mainly responsible for the depression in the coal and iron trades.
In reminding us that railway wages have been increased by 140 per cent., Mr. Arthurton is careful to avoid any further comment on this exorbitant wages bill. To illuminate it I furnish the following interesting figures which represent, approximately, the normal relative position as between British and German railways : These figures ,show that to maintain an additional 12,000 miles of track and deal with nearly 50 per cent. more traffic the German railways employ hardly more men than the British companies? To put it in another way, our railways should be operated by about 400,000 men only—equal to a saving of some £40,000,000 a year in the railway wages bill. A comparison with American railways yields a much more startling result.
The principal reasons advanced to account for this grave inefficiency can well bear the following repetition:— 1. The failure of the railways to abolish private ownership in wagons—the costs of which unnecessarily duplicate operating expenses.
2. The failure of British railways to build 20-ton and 40-ton wagons—which secure an economy of 50 per cent. and 75 per cent. respectively in operating expenses.
3. The running of hundreds of unnecessary excursion trains, simply because the public cannot afford the present exorbitant ordinary fares.
4. Running motor coaches, at low fares, in competition with their own trains!
The general public, the motor industry and the Traffic Commissioners will now require to know whether a categorical, satisfactory and convincing refutation of the soundness of these charges can be made by the railway companies, A RAILwAY EXPERT, London, S.W.9.
The Insurance of Loads.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOIDE.
[3460] Sir,—I shall be pleased if you will inform me whether I am responsible for any damage which might be caused by fire or accident to the loads which I carry. Work is accepted on one or other of the following terms:— (a) At a fixed charge for the day, with a further payment for every mile in excess of an agreed distance; (b) At an agreed amount for taking a load from customer's warehouse to a given address; (c) At an agreed rate per hour or day, with no restriction as to distance; (d) To carry packages, at an agreed rate, dependent upon various sizes, from farms to markets.
I supply drivers in all cases. TRANSPORT. Maidstone.
[Generally speaking, you are responsible for the care of any loads entrusted to you, and are certainly liable for damage which can be shown to be due to your negligence. Any argument concerning the apportionment of blame is invariably costly, and as a "Goods in Transit" policy of insurance is inexpensive, it is better in the long run to take out such a policy and to advertise the fact to your clients, present and prospective.
The foregoing applies to all the different kinds of contract named in your letter. Any variation would only be the outcome of written agreement—S.T.R.]
A Combined Mourning Coach and Hearse.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[S461] Sir,—I have a saloon car which is used as a coach when attending funerals. I have had an application to use it as a coach for the mourner, also to take the coffin in a properly made box, which would be fixed on the carrier at the back of the vehicle and which would be removable when not required for this lairpose; Also to use it for the same purpose but for . the coffin to be carried inside the car. These applications refer only to funerals for children up to about six years of age. The vehicle referred to is licensed as a 7-seater hackney carriage and insured in the same category.
To do as requested would I have to get this vehicle licensed or insured as a goods vehicle, or would it be in order with the existing licence and insurance?
Esh Winning. J. WOODWARD.
[Your letter raises a question with regard to licences for motor vehicles the answer to which is not entirely free from doubt, but on the whole it appears that so long as you continue to use the vehicle for the conveyance of mourners, the mere fact, that, at the same time, you convey the coffin, would not make the vehicle taxable except as a vehicle let for hire for the conveyance of passengers.
It is important that you should inform your insurance company that on some occasions the coffin may be carried with the mourners, and obtain written confirmation that yoii will be covered under your policy on such occasions.—En.1
Carrying People to Market in a Lorry.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3462] Sir,—I have been a regular reader of your journal for some time and will be pleased if you can enlighten me on the following points:—
I run a lorry to market every morning, carrying with me four or five people and bringing their goods back; I already have a hackney carriage licence for it. Is this licence compulsory and do I need a public-servicevehicle licence, etc, for it? Can I run it as a goods vehicle only, insure it for five passengers and still be within the law?
I have also two coaches, but do not run advertised trips, all trips being booked up by private parties, and I pick them up and drop them as a whole. Is it necessary to apply to the Traffic Commissioners for routes, for road-service licences and for backings?
I regret to put you to any trouble, but the new regu
lations are a little beyond me. SMALL OWNER. Stafford.
[The provisions of the Road Traffic Act are not free from doubt, but it appears that so long as the arrangement is that people whom you carry do not exceed seven, and that they have the exclusive use of the vehicle while it is going to and from the market, the vehicle is not subject to the provisions of the Act which relate to public service vehicles. The Act defines contract carriages as "motor vehicles carrying passengers for }lire or reward under a contract exprtssed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum." It also defines a public service vehicle as meaning "a motor vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire or reward other than a vehicle which is a contract carriage within the meaning of this Act and is adapted to carry less than eight passengers or is a tramcar or a trolley \Thiele."
As the vehicle is a goods lorry we assume that licence duty is paid on the weight unladen, and as that duty exceeds the £12 duty which is payable for a hackney carriage seating not more than eight persons it is not necessary to license the lorry as a hackney carriage, although the fact that it is used for the conveyance of persons as well as goods should be disclosed to the licensing authority. As for the reasons explained above, the lorry is not a public service vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act a public service vehicle licence is not required for your machine.
The two coaches for which you do not run advertised trips—all trips being booked up by private parties picked up and dropped as a whole—will not require licences and backings so long as the vehicle comes within the definition of a "contract carriage" which is given above.—ED.] Running Tours Without Licences.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3463] Sir,—I have six buses and I have applied for a road-service licence for each. Two of these vehicles are stage carriages (their case has not come up yet) ; as to the other four, we applied for new road-service licences for them and these were granted on June 24th, 1031.
During the period when we were waiting for the new road-service licences these four buses were doing all sorts of work.
I advertised in the local paper and on the occasion of the Highland Show at Edinburgh an inspector of Police asked me for my licence to run tours. As I had no licence (or no knowledge that I required one, having done this kind of work for years), the inspector is charging me with the offence of running tours without a licence.
I telephoned to the Traffic Commissioner and told him about the inspector charging me. The Commissioner said we were late with the application but he would send down forms immediately. Do you think the Police can make a charge against me?
Auchinleek. A. LIDDELL.
[We would point out that para. 6 of the Public Service 'Vehicles (Transitory Provisions) (No. 2) Order, 1931, dated March 13th, 1931, provided as follows :—
"Whore a person was on the 9th February, 1931, operating a service of public service vehicles and has before 31st March, 1931, applied in the prescribed nmnner to the Commissioners for any traffic area, for the grant or backing of a road service licence authorizing the continuance with or without modifications of that service within that area, it shall not be all offence by reason only of the fact that he is not the holder of a road service licence, for the applicant, pending the grant or refusal of his application by the Commissioners, to continue to operate that service within that area, subject at all times to any conditions or restrictions which were in force on 9th February, 1931, with such renewal variations of the service as were in operation during the corresponding period of the year 1930."
• If you ran trips to the Highland Show, Edinburgh, in 1930, it would not have been an offence for you to do so this year, even though you had not obtained a road service licence,so loag as yap had made application for a road service licence before March 31st, 1931. We understand that you had not applied for a licence before that date and therefore, strictly speaking, you could be convicted of an offence under the Road Traffic Act. It appears hardly likely that the Sheriff, or other magistrate before whom your case is heard, would impose any penalty apart from ordering you to pat expenses (this is the Scottish equivalent of "costs") in view of the fact that your licences have since been granted.—ED.]