Proceedings at T.L.R.T.A, Conference
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ril-HE consensus of opinion respecting the annual conk. ference at Leeds of the Tramways Light Railways and Transport Association was that it had been most successful in respect of the quality of the papers submitted, the interesting discussions which followed, and the social side. Over 300 members and guests, including ladies, attended.
Speaking at the general meeting, on June 8, the chairman of the council, Mr. E. E. Edwardes, A.M.I.E.E., M.Inst.T. (managing director, South Lancashire Transport Co.), said that it was a relief to users of trolley-buses to find that there was to be no extra taxation, whilst additional weight WU likely to be allowed under it new regulation, and bodies can now be constructed •entirely of metal. Digests of the various papers were given in our issue for last" week, and we will now deal only with the discussion on each.
Modern Mass Transportation -Methods.
Mr. Vane Morland's paper was entitled -" Modern 'Mass rransportation Methods," and the discussion was opened by Mr. R. Stuart Pikher (Manchester), who referred to the regenerative system employed in Manchester, which effected a current saving on many routes of 22i per cent. It was absurd to be afraid to run buses betause : of higher fares. These are absolutely unnecessary. Buses can be run at the same fares, apart from purely local conditions. Mr. Morland had said that city traffic cannot be dealt. with by the bus.. What about London, where the conditions met are worse than in any provincial city? Large rushes are -encountered at Manchester. A tram can carry 82 people and a bus 52, but the higher speed of the latter equalizes the capacity. When catering for crowds, buses can be kept in side streets, whereas the trams are in rows. In London, something will come off the streets, but it will not be the bus. On his Altrincharn bus route he had charged 5d. for nine miles, but was later made to charge 6d. q'here was, however, no loss of passengers to the high-speed trams.
There were 14 transport members of the Association who did not run trams. Italy said that all trams were to be removed, and Faris had barred them from the central areas.
Double-deck buses can earn, on a given route, a higher rate per mile, run at a higher scheduled speed and earn a greater profit, whilst no provision had to be made for track renewals.
'As regards oil buses, Mr. Filcher made a total saving of £508 per week with 50 vehicles.
-Mr. M. Calder (Reading) referred to the nest egg which the Leeds City Council was obtaining from its tram ways undertaking, but was the council wise in retaining the' trams? He thought that the public might become restive and 'force the council to adopt more modern vehicles. Mr. F., Fitapayne (Edinburgh), working on Mr. Mor land's figures, found that there was a difference in favour of the oil Vehicle Of 21d. per bus-Mile, and said if he had oil buses and obtained such results he did not think he would have anything' else. " • Major. R. McCreary, M.C. (Belfast), said that trolleybuses could never be an efficient substitute for tramcars while therestriction regarding the number of passengers allowed to stand was retained. In Belfast. only three could stand in the trolley-bus against the five in England. In one case, a conductor of a tram with a seating capacity of 70 affinitted carrying 163 passengers. Mr. G. H. Margrave (Yorks (Wit.) Electric Tramways) referred to points needing immediate' attention—the overloading regulations by which the standing passengers were so limited in buses, and the cumplieated routine in respect of applications to Commissioners. There was a procession of applications followed by a procession of objections. He agreed with Mr. Filcher that the bus was the best for most areas. His company had scrapped its last tram last year.
The. chairman, Mr. E. EL Edwardes, regretted that the discussion had developed into-a tram v. bus argument. As regards Mr. Pilcher's remarks, he could "say only that he had never seen a modern tratncar in Manchester.
Regeneration on Trolley-buses.'
Mr. G. H. Fletcher (Metropolitan-Vickers) said that many designers would disagree with adopting a shunt characteristic for regeneration. He anticipated' trouble because such a characteristic lacks the stability obtained with a small number of series turns in circuit which, gives a rising characteristic during regeneration and 'prevents any
rust of current. Referring to Class A and Class B insulation be expressed a preference for the latter and suggested its use more often than is the case at present because it is practically indestructible at any temperature likely to be reached in service.
Mr. H. L. Brodie (Sunbeam) disagreed with the author's preference for putting the motor in the front of the vehicle and pointed out that considerable experience in Manufacturers' chassis with the motor in the centre of the vehicle has shown many advantages. He pointed out the imposk sibility of arresting a vehicle with this form of braking and the need for an ordinary brake in addition.
Mr. W. Vincent Edwards (Hastings and District Electric Tramways Co.) spoke of the satisfactory service that continues to be given, in Hastings, with vehicles equipped on Mr. Stevens' regenerative control system and said that he had not had a single failure of a shunt field coil nor of the insulation.
The chairman said that in his own case current consumption was less important than in others, because he was able to generate electricity at 0.2d. per unit. As regards maintenance his view was that if trolley-buses are to live they will do so only if maintenance costs are cut down to the lewest limit and they could never live if maintenance costs were to be as high as in the case of petrol buses.
Mr. Stevens in his reply to the discussion thought he could meet Mr. Fletcher half way ':on the question of the shunt characteristic, by introducing. say, half a dozen series turns to help the regenerative braking. He expressed a preference for Class A insulation and enamelled copper wire because of the larger space factor and said that as in all the War Office petrol-electric ears since 1916, also in a large number of commercial vehicles this system was working satisfactorily.
In replying, Mr. Morland caused some amusement by recalling the day when he advocated the employment of trolley-buses in a certain area, partly on account of their fire-resisting properties. On the first day there was fog, which meant running on the resistances ; consequently, one of the buses caught fire and the brigade had to be summoned. He referred to the fact that foreign vehicles were mostly designed for the maximum number of standing passengers. It was ridiculous to suggest that dense crowds of people could be dealt with efficiently' with the present restrictions.
Various Fuels Used in Bus Engines.
In the discussion on the paper "Various Types of Fuel Used in Omnibus Engines," by Mr. D. E. Bell A.M;LE.E. (Yorkshire (W.D.) Electric Tramways, Ltd.), Mr. D. E. Batty (A.E.C.) said the answer to 'most of the troubles with alternative fuels lay in raising the compression. By adjusting this, the maximum efficiency could be obtained from each fuel. The oil engine took full advantage of the fuel, and he prophesied that it would be the predominant type Of ergine in, the future. M.-B: England (Southend-on-Sea) referred to experiments with the Heico-Kellner and Burton-Wood vaporizers, giving good results with oil now costing lgd. per gallon. Th@ chief trouble was smoking at low speeds and when the engine , was allowed to cool. No dilution was experienced, but the ' power declined, due to the use of old-type engines.' Hp personally felt that the oil 'bus was the most efficient unit, and he would think long before buying petrol vehicles, except for seaside towns. He had lost his anxiety regarding big! end troubles ; at least one maker guaranteed these for 50,000
Colonel S. E. Smith (Bristol) praised the makers of oil engines. He did not agree that finality in petrol-unit design had arrived. He referred to the possibility of building a petrol engine to give a consumption of .5 pint per b.h.p.-hour, against the .75 pint per b.h.p.-hour of the ordinary type. In aviation we had gone beyond the limit of ordinary petrol, and could increase the power only by raising the octane value.
Councillor F. J. Leach (Leeds) said that the smell from acme alternative fuels was the determining factor as to what' could be used. , Mr. Edwardes referred to the oil engine, and said it was improving every week; even in the past six months developments had occurred which had resulted in almost eihninatini smoke and smell. • . .