1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156 
OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 101
Page 102
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
More Controversy on the Comparative Costs of Operating Oil-engined and Steam Vehicles The Fallacy of the Belief that Heavy Motor Vehicles Do Considerable Damage to the Roads
Comparing the Costs of Oilers and Steamers.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3935] Sir,—In Mr. W. H. Goddard's letter which you published on October 14 he ignored depreciation, and instead took the interest charges at £30 per annum on the difference in cost between an oiler and a steamer.
At last, in his letter which appeared in your issue dated December 2, he admits that depreciation " on the oiler is £80 per annum to the bad," which was the point at which we were endeavouring to arrive.
The fuel cost for 100 miles a day with a Sentinel, which Mr. Goddard quotes, is obviously absurd: half his figure would be excessive and considerably above the average.
As to an oiler requiring no mate, if an extra man is not required for handling the load the use of the AutoSentinel with mechanical fuel and automatic water control achieves the same result.
F. W. BENNETT, Publicity Manager.
, For The " Sentinel " Waggon Works, Ltd. Shrewsbury.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3936] Sir,—We have read with interest • Mr. Goddard's letter on Oil versus Steam Wagons, published recently in The Commercial Motor, and would be obliged if you would allow us to reply to Mr. Goddard's statements regarding the running costs of Sentinel steam wagons in comparison with those of his oilers.
We wish to give him our costs, over a period of two years, for running a fleet of six Sentinel six-wheelers in comparison with his 12-ton oiler.
Regarding depreciation, we agree with him that there is a saving of 180 per annum per vehicle, but the statement that fuel costs 20s. 3d. per day of 100 miles we are convinced is not correct, as our total fuel cost from January 1, 1930, to December 31, 1931, is £1,314 9s. Rd., representing approximately 1,050 tons of hard coke nuts at an average price of 25s. per ton, which, based on our vehicles running an average of 500 miles per week, is 8s. 6d. per 100 miles, as against Mr. Goddard's 20s. 3d.
With reference to the Item of 20 gallons of oil per 30,000 miles, we agree that the oiler is much more economical on this item, but it means that a 12-ton oiler averages 1,500 m.p.g. Surely this is wonderful, as the writer's new private car of 15 h.p. uses more.
As to renewals, our total costs for this item during the same period of two years are £253 Ss. 6t1., which represents an average cost of £21 2s. per annum for each vehicle.
We would like to see makers of oilers agreeing to renewals for their vehicles over two years at this cost! 'Mr. Goddard states that the 12-ton oiler needs no mate ; we could say the same of the Sentinel when fitted with a mechanical stoker, but surely he will agree with us that two men are necessary for either a 12-ton oiler or a similar steamer. We, as transport contractors, find it pays us to employ mates.
Regarding the item of £20 per annum for each vehicle for lighting up, loading up with fuel, filling .up with water, etc., this item costs us two hours of one man's time each day, six days per week, at Is. 3d. per hour, which is £39 per annum for six vehicles, against Mr. Goddard's £120.
The drivers and mates drive their steamers immediately away from the garage in the morning, which is not always the case with the oiler, especially in cold weather.
The sole reason for our replying to Mr. Goddard is that our figures entirely disagree with his, so far as the costs of the Sentinel steam wagon are concerned, and we can show accounts to substantiate all our statements.
We may add that we are lookinab forward to the early delivery of another Sentinel six-wheeled wagon.
JOHN BAXTER, JUNE., Managing Director, For John Baxter and Co., Ltd. Newcastle-on-Tyne.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
139371 Sir,—Regarding Mr. Goddard's letter on the subject of Oilers versus Steamers in your issue of December 2, I would like to take exception to one or two of his figures and statements.
When comparing both types on a 12-ton basis he puts the fuel costs for the steamer at 20s. for a 100mile journey, and he assesses the oiler to -do 12 m.p.g. over the distance. I claim both these to be wrong; he is too pessimistic with one and too optimistic with the other. If he puts 15s. down for the steamer, this to include lighting, firewood, etc., and 10 m.p.g. for the oiler he will be much nearer the mark. I am not guessing at these figures, as they are the actual ones I have obtained with both types over a 100-mile working day, and I might mention that the oiler was fitted with the latest-type six-cylindered engine in which Mr. Goddard is interested.
I am not trying to decry the oiler, as I recognize that there is a definite future for it, and it reflects great credit on all those associated in its development, including Mr. Goddard.
I do not think that it would be wise to be too exuberant about the initial progress of the oil-engined vehicle, and to ,talk of other forms of motive power being left behind in the evolution of progress. Mr. Goddard must remember that the chief means for
transportation for the world at large is still steam power.
When comparing both types for road vehicles Mr. Goddard mentions the disadvantages of steam, but not its advantages ; he does not mention the great advantage of the steamer in having a practically infinitely variable gear, without the disadvantages of mechanical complication such as gearboxes, clutches, auxiliary gears, universal joints, etc.
I am not speaking from hearsay, having had long experience in transport after serving a full-time bound apprenticeship in a steam road-vehicle works, but I am not biased and have driven steam and petrol-engined vehicles for hundreds of thousands of miles. Any experienced driver must have smiled whe'n he read Mr. Goddard's statement about starting up and being off in two minutes with the oiler ; perhaps it would if it were kept in a heated garage all night, hut how many haulage contractors can afford the luxury of heating apparatus capable of keeping the cold out of a large garage?
There may be points where the steamer can be improved upon, but the old hands will want much convincing that it is finished and will have to give way to a newer form of motive power. As proof of this, it will he seen from the latest licensing figures that for vehicles above 6 tons capacity the steamer is nearly on a 50-50 basis with other types, and this in spite of the fact that we have passed through an unparalleled trade depression. L. COLE. Leeds.
Are Roads Really Damaged by Heavy Vehicles ?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3938] Sir,—In studying the mass of Press cuttings that reach me in connection with the road-rail controversy, I am impressed by the frequency with which writers in papers all over the country take it for granted that an immense amount of damage must be done to the roads by the heavier classes of vehicle, this damage presumably being, in their opinion, more than proportionate to the laden weight or axle weight. Numerous relevant factors are invariably ignored, as. for example, the effect of speed on road wear, the effect of distributing the load over more than two axles, the effect of varying the area of tyre normally in contact with the road, and the effect of transmitting power through the tyre from the engine to the surface of the road.
It seems almost inevitable that in the near future there will be at least a serious threat of greatly increased taxation of the heavier vehicles. The proposal will be justified on the broad assumption that they are merely being called upon to pay for the damage they do. There must surely be in existence records Of properly conducted tests and observations from which something approaching an accurate estimate of the relations of vehicle weight to road wear should be obtainable. At present, so far as I am aware, the arguments which could be put forward in favour of the heavier vehicles, if they were immediately threatened with very heavy taxation, have never been properly formulated, nor the investigations that would be necessary for this to be 'done, ever carried out.
The Salter Committee seems merely to have jumped to conclusions based on no evidence at all. Perhaps some of your readers who have given scientific attention to the subject might be disposed to communicate their results, arid I cannot help thinking that if this were done the result would be to render available a quantity of arguments and figures which would be very useful to all those who are endeavouring to fight the case of road transport and to correct the common errors into which the public as a whole is liable to fall or to be misled.
HORACE WYATT, Hon. Organizing Secretary,
London, W.C.2. The Road Transport League.
[Some years ago The American Bureau of Public Roads carried out a series of impact tests with four-wheeled and six-wheeled vehicles of various capacities shod with either solid or pneumatic tyres. Details of the results obtained were published at the time by this journal, and some of them were repeated on page 563 of our issue for last week. We quite agree, however, that more information of this kind would be most valuable if obtained from authoritative sources.—En.]