Part-time Crews and a Penal .
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Non-standard Bus Design P
PEAK TRAVEL
"IN the recent Buchanan Report . . . the point was made I • that Public transport must be intrinsically convenient if it were to attract optional car traffic off the roads in appreciable quantities and, given a -different financial policy, travel by public transport could be made relatively cheap. lit my opinion public transport, both by road and rail, is still today relatively cheap judged by any standards."
Mr. I. R. Patey, who opened his paper with the above words, proceeded to defend his statement by referring to the large numbers of people who were today supplied with cars by the firms who employed them. They used these cars for travel to and from work and rarely had any knowledge of the cost of their operation_ To these people any charge made by public transport appeared to be expensive, he contended. Another section of the public which owned its own motorcars argued that the only cost of using the car for journeys to and from work was the cost of petrol. They argued that they would own a car anyway and therefore there was no need to take any account of depreciation, licence, insurance, and repair bills. Was it fair to judge the cost of public transport against these standards, Mr. Patey asked?
"Ask the regular user of public transport in our large cities whether he is satisfied with the present standard of service, and I am fairly confident the answer would be an emphatic No! '", Mr. Patey continued. On the other hand, to ask the operator Whether he considered that, with 'regard to the difficulties with which he had to contend, he was providing a good and reasonable service, he would emphatically answer "Yes!". Between these two diverse opinions must lie some problems and it was the speaker's intention to try and examine them and see whether it was possible to bring about some improvement on the present State of affairs.
The three main problems, argued Mr. .Patey, were traffic congestion; providing sufficient rolling stock to be run at an economic price: and finding sufficient Labour to man the rolling stock at the times required. It was difficult for a member of the travelling public to realize the full effects congestion had on services. On many occasions, he said, a traffic hold-up some miles away would leave his road completely starved of vehicles. Many cities had tried radio control, closed circuit television, and so on, and most had received some benefit from these experiments, but nobody had found the answer to congestion. They only got to know where their buses were locked up and tried to take some corrective action.
During the Suez crisis, he said, most operators found they could pick up a vastly increased number of passengers in the same time without using any more buses, During the last few years there had been a realization by local authorities that roundabouts and traffic lights did not, in themselves, relieve congestion and, in fact, there was no doubt that roundabouts could even produce a complete stagnation of traffic in the area. Far too many local authorities, he continued, had been slow to appreciate the benefit of traffic engineering and far too often had the local shopkeeper swayed the decision taken in council.
In many cities one could see pedestrians crossing between two large stcires. Mr. Patey had often felt that most of them were crossing the road with no real purpose in mind;, filling in Saturday afternoon at the shops. The effect of these uncon trolled crossings on traffic was often disastrous. We wer moving in the control of the motorcar—all too often we forgc to control the pedestrian, Mr. -Patey then prodticed statistics which showed that th total peak perod in London did not exceed five hours, and i Bristol it was little more than four and a half hours. Outsid the peak, little over half the operating fleet was in use an few industrialists could be faced with the problem of usin only half their expensive plant for four hours per day. Th travelling public always found it hard to understand that vehicle on which they were travelling as a standing passenge was, in fact, running at a loss. It could well be said that E the present time the off-peak passengers were subsidizing th peak period travellers, • Over the last 25 years the peak period had steadily becom more contracted. It might be that if hours of work becam even less over the years, staggering of hours might be mar acceptable, Mr. Patey suggested, and the period of the pea could be extended to the benefit of both passengers and opera tors. Undoubtedly the travelling public would like to catch bus without waiting and travel without standing—to provid these facilities the industry would have to put many mor vehicles on the road. The peak would become even shorte than today, and operation even more uneconomic.
If the public were prepared to pay extra for more comfor in the peak, could the industry meet the need, asked Mr. Pates There would be no problem in finding more vehicles and h was sure the Manufacturers would welcome the extra busines! It was doubtful, however, if it would be possible to find stal to man the extra vehicles under present-day conditions. Man undertakings had vehicles lying idle in garages during the peal period at the present time due to their inability to find crews.
Really to appreciate the problem it was necessary to look a how the vehicles were manned at the present time, the speake continued, Nearly twice as many crews were needed for onl three hours every morning and evening, compared with an other time of the day. The start and finish of these periods wer separated by 111 hours, and to employ a staff to work th morning and evening peak only, without any additional work would be both expensive in the use of labour and would als1 be unattractive to the crews as it would leave them with th bare basic wage. In most undertakings, therefore, these three hour periods were worked as overtime, mainly as attachment to early or late duties.
It was sometimes suggested that the industry was short o labour for two main reasons—firstly, too low a rate of pay, an secondly, shift working. Neither of these in Mr. Patey's opinioi had any real foundation. If the basic rate of pay were raise/ sufficiently, crews would no longer wish to work the presen level of overtime, and the position of the passenger woull worsen as fewer peak-period buses ran. Shift working wa attractive to a large number of people, he contended.
Amongst suggestions for solving the problem, Mr. Pate mentioned the possible use of part-time labour for peak-periol duties. He was certain that many women would be prepare+ to work on part-time duties as conductresses. The introductioi of dual-purpose duties such as conductor/cleaner an maintenance/driver should not be ruled out. He also suggestel
that a man working on his own account would find no problem in doing two jobs. Why—when the staff took 14s. out of every El collected on a bus and therefore virtually owned the business —should there be any difficulty?
As a final plea, Mr. Patey asked for a staggering of working hours in factories, shops and offices. Most people believed in the advantages of staggering hours, but few would accept that it should be applied to themselves. Surely the answer was not to duplicate the facilities, but to spread the load. This could save many millions of pounds of expenditure on our roads alone.
CURRENT PROBLEMS
{4 difficulties of recent years have produced from time
TT time expressions of opinion to the effect that the road passenger transport industry is in decline, that it has passed the peak of its growth, that just as the horse has been replaced by the internal combustion engine, so shortly will the bus give way to other forms of transport offering advantages in one way or another."
It was against this rather gloomy background that Mr. Mackenzie introduced his paper, and went on to discuss many of the problems affecting all branches of the road passenger transport industry, with a view, as he put it, to stimulate thought, provoke discussion and encourage comment from the widest cross-section of the association's membership.
Mr. Mackenzie first produced figures from the M.o.T. publication "Passenger Transport in Great Britain" which showed that whilst the number of passengers carried had declined (from a peak of 13,938m. in 1959 to 13,030m. in 1962) the number of buses in operation had shown a slightly upward trend (77.093 in 1959 to 78,083 in 1962) over the same period. This was an indication of the increased concentration of the peak period and the endeavours of operators to cater for it. The influence of 36-ft, vehicles seating up to 53 was just becoming apparent, and any resulting decline in the number of buses operated could not be taken as in itself conclusive. It was true, Mr. Mackenzie continued, that personal transport was on the increase, but it was also true that the total volume of transport was increasing, and likely to continue doing so, and operators must ensure that public transport shared in that development. The future of the industry was very much in their own hands, he said.
Mr. Mackenzie then referred to Mr. Marples' recent speech pledging the Ministry's incrcased co-operation with the industry in the next four years, and continued by quoting many of the paragraphs of the Buchanan Report relevant to public transport, and the comments on the report made by Mr. J. S. Wilts, chairman of the Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co. Ltd. "At last it is being recognized nationally that public transport is an essential tool in urban planning ", said Mr. Mackenzie, who then called for some immediate action to enable the bus fully to perform its function and to demonstrate its ability to fill the role which the new conception demanded. With the avalanche of car ownership almost upon us, action must be taken now to prohibit or restrict parking, loading and unloading on busy bus routes; provide car parks in suburbs at an economic charge; permit special traffic facilities for buses; abolish the fuel tax burden, possibly by annual remission of tax paid; and encourage staggered hours, he said.
The subject of Regulations then received Mr. Mackenzie's attention; he said that the industry warmly welcomed the constructive and helpful outlook of the Minister and his senior officers towards this question, but expressed concern that decisions to implement new regulations which would help the development of the industry might be delayed because of anticipated trade union objections. It must be made clear :hat those on the operating side of the business felt competent themselves to deal with that aspect of the matter because of he long and close contact with the unions, he added.
On the subject of fuel tax, Mr. Mackenzie referred to regu.ations stipulating minimum power/weight ratios which had recently been drafted, and whilst the industry was unlikely to be affected by the present proposals, he asked was it not common practice for many operators to derate their engines, and were they right in doing this, even with the present fuel tax? "Are we not more likely to retain our traffic—and perhaps even to regain some--if we make our buses more competitive in performance by fitting the larger instead of the smaller power unit?'
It was interesting to study the var:ation in size in British bus fleets, Mr. Mackenzie continued; for example, fleets in the B.E.T. group ranged from 1,933 to seven with an average of 331. It must be noted that in the B.E.T. and Tilling groups some of the larger fleets were split up into smaller companies each with a large measure of autonomy, but with dependence upon a larger company for technical and other services. To the travelling public they were separate, independent and competitive companies, in many cases with distinctive liveries, uniforms, and so on. " Is there merit in this arrangement? ", he asked, and continued by describing how the travelling public felt they had lost a local feature when an independent company was absorbed in a larger concern. The esprit de corps of the independent's staff and intense loyalty to the company might also be largely lost. What was to be gained by destroying the local identity and goodwill? Was there advantage to be gained by splitting up some of the larger companies into smaller ones, giving them full operational authority locally with the exception of such technical services that could be more economically centralized elsewhere?
Dealing with staff training, Mr. Mackenzie asked to what extent the industry recruited graduates from the universities and other seats of learning. The industry had become progressively more based on science, and whether or not it provided its own domestic training schemes it must, for survival, take advantage of the abilities of the younger and more highly educated products of our schools and colleges.
On productivity, the speaker called for the minimum number of vehicles to be employed—there was no room for empirebuilding here. Progress with one-man operation had been slow. he said, partly perhaps due to opposition from trade unions, stimulated possibly by the fact that there had been no concerted and purposeful policy on the part of operators to go ahead. The decision to pay 15 per cent more to one-man drivers in all areas irrespective 01 the work content was an unfortunate one from which the industry must extricate itself—but how? Did the solution lie in paying above the national minimum in heavily populated areas, he asked?
Turning to vehicle design, Mr. Mackenzie remarked on he diversity of models available and said that some consolidation of design, without prejudicing progress, was an objective towards which operators and manufacturers must strive in unison. Some progress towards limited body standardization within each of the three company groups was now evident, and would be followed by an elimination of many of the chassis variables previously specified by individual companies.
The large double-decker with power-operated front or forward door had become firmly established, he said, and if it was accepted that a front or forward entrance aided the conductor, reduced platform accidents, and lent itself to either parallelplatform or head-on loading at bus stations, then surely there was no longer even a limited field for the rear-entrance vehicle. Yet these vehicles were still being ordered and produced, and it would be interesting to know the justification, The frontdoor design demanded a rear engine which in turn apparently demanded an automatic or semi-automatic transmission. Must such transmissions, available on so many medium-priced cars. be denied to the bus driver and passenger for which they were so admirably suited?
Logically, with a rear-engined double-decker one looked for a rear-engined single-decker as a solution to the multi-step entrance. Did the limited experience now available support the hope that here might be something to provide near-finality in broad design for the bulk of single-deck vehicles, Mr. Mackenzie asked. Could we discern, in the mass of vehicle types produced, a trend towards one design for the bulk of our vehicles, with rear-engine and front-entrance for both doubleand single-deck bodies? It was difficult to appreciate why a bus for Blackpool could not work in Blackburn, Edinburgh or Glasgow. Was the alternative for the manufacturers to impose a price penalty for non-standard design?.
Speaking of fares, Mr. Mackenzie asked if the industry could use differentials as an instrument to guide optional traffic away from the peaks and towards the valleys, as was already done in a small way with higher week-end fares on some longdistance services. The industry, quite apart from the travelling public, he continued, would no doubt welcome the progressive outlook of the three company groups in their proposal to produce all future timetables in one standardized size and layout, thereby enabling a composite timetable booklet to be prepared for cities and areas where there were two or more operators. The 24-hour clock would be incorporated for all services by not later than 1965. Inherent in this approach was the view that the bus industry's competitor was not the other operator, or even the railway, but the motorcar. So forwardlooking an outlook was truly commendable.
Mr. Mackenzie concluded with some remarks on the subject of joint consultation between management and staff. The staff should know the proposals of the management with regard to vehicle design. changes in services, and so on. The system must not be regarded as a means for permitting the blowing-off of steam, nor must consultative meetings be turned into a forum for complaints. There must be a willingness to learn and experiment, he concluded.
Chairman Speaks on Rural Buses
Rural transport surveys undertaken by the Ministry of Transport in 1963 had failed to bring to light anything of importance that was not known before, said Mr. W. M. Dravers, chairman, at the P.T.A. annual general meeting. There would always be some, particularly the old, young and infirm, who would need the public services and the Association viewed with concern the Ministry's proposal to set up committees in small rural areas to investigate local situations. These committees might examine
if.44
problems and solutions from too narrow an angle and there was a real fear in his mind, said Mr. Dravers, that some remedy would be prescribed that would aggravate rather than cure the complaint. .Those in favour of changing the rural bus arrangements sometimes argued that little men could operate more cheaply than big companies and the latter, being relieved of the need to support uneconomic rural routes, would be able to run more cheaply and at. lower fares on the other.services -they provided. Both these arguments were much too sweeping, he said.
It would be disastrous if ill-considered measures resulted in reducing a fine public service to the pitiful level enjoyed by those countries which were held out as examples. The allimportant reason why urban bus services were less attractive than they ought to be arose from the effect of traffic congestion on journey times. The advantage of speed in cities had got to be transferred from private to public vehicles.
Discussing Mr. Patey's paper, Mr. A. F. Neal (Manchester) asked whether they should not go over to one-man buses with improved methods for fare collection which might give better frequencies. They would not get all the necessary facilities for public transport until they could convince the planners what was desirable for the public good. In Manchester, they had completed arrangements for a short length of highway where buses would run against the traffic flow but then they came up against delay by the Ministry.
In quoting the number of vehicles in use at peak hours, said Mr. H. Perring (Ministry of Transport), they were shown the solution particular operators were able to produce with their facilities. What was really wanted was to ascertain the number of persons desiring to travel at certain hours rather than the number of buses in service at that period.
Next month, Kingston-upon-Hull was bringing in an extensive one-way plan that would help to speed up traffic in the city centre, said Mr. G. H. Pulfrey (Kingston-upon-Hull). For certain radial roads parking was eliminated and traffic flowed faster than pre-war. In the new scheme it was being allowed to run contrary to the general flow.