In Favour of the Motor Omnibus.
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Col. R. E. B. CROM.PTON,
C.B.' M.Inst.C.E., M.Inst.Mech.E., Past President Inst.E.E.
The severe criticism recently passed by a section of the Press on electric trams is useful in some respects, as it may call the attention of local authorities to the fact that they are, perhaps, unwise in spending such large sums on electric tramways when there are other means to the same end already available. The criticism, however, has been somewhat one-sided and exaggerated, and in that respect may cause alarm to moderate-minded people. My own opinion is that electric trams are economically inferior to Motor Omnibuses wherever it is attempted to run trams over smooth, well-paved streets which, as a general rule, are well filled with the ordinary classes of traffic. This is especially the case when these streets are narrow, for the mere fact of laying down rails in a street reduces the total amount of traffic that can be carried throughout. In this case the introduction of a tramway reduces the efficiency of the street through which it is laid, and is, therefore, economically speaking, a mistake; and it is practically certain that existing electric tram lines are likely to be taken up and superseded by Motor Omnibuses in such cases as these. I think that in all cases where trams have been laid in congested streets they will be removed, for it will be seen that it will pay the municipalities better to suffer the loss due to this removal than to go to the greater expense of widening the streets in order to relieve congestion. As to the carrying capacity of Motor Omnibuses, and the possiblity of their being able to convey 7,000 passengers past a given point per hour, which is a performance easily accomplished by electric traffic, I can only refer to my British Association address at Glasgow four years ago, in which I pointed out that Motor Omnibuses could easily carry 15,000 passengers per hour past a given point, whereas this is practically impossible with a single line of trams. The fact that tramway authorities often improve roadways is frequently overlooked by their critics. In some cases, notably within towns, they have put down wood pavement— which ought to have been done by the municipal authorities themselves. I think it is a pity that this has been done by tramway companies, as it has mystified the public, and has been used as a set-off against the enormous inconvenience caused by the rails themselves.
I admit that electric traction is superior to Motor Omnibuses wherever the roads are exceedingly wide—that is to say, too wide for the present traffic—or where there is waste land by the side of the roadway on which the tramway (which should then be called a light railway) could lay its rails; in such a case the use of a tramway is supplementary to that of the road, and is likely to be beneficial to the neighbourhood. The ideal use of a tramway is to open out new exits from a town, taking up fresh land for the purpose; but in no case should rails be laid on the old roads leading in and out of towns, as these are, in the majority of cases, far too narrow.
The principal arguments in favour of the Motor Omnibus, as compared with the electric tram, are : (i.) Greatly increased speed; e.g., 12 miles per hour as against seven miles per hour.
(2.) Lower cost.
(3.) Less noise.
(4.) Reduced interference with other traffic.
(5.) Capacity of motor omnibuses to work a less frequented route, being temporarily removed to lighten the traffic of a more congested route.
The important question of how motor omnibuses can compete with electric trams, in view of the fact that the former carry only 34 passengers and cost between Tod. and is. a mile to run, whilst the latter carry 70 passengers and cost between 51d. and 61d. a mile to run, is an extremely difficult one to answer. 1 think, however, that the figures given are altogether wrong, and based on insufficient data. I read with much interest in the commercial supplement of "The Times" of Monday, February 27th, the article on "Tramways v. Motor Omnibuses." It was stated there that the cost of omnibuses of the petrol type works out at from gd. to 14d. per mile, which agrees fairly with the figure
put down for consideration. Trams are statct. to cost 5d. per car mile and to carry when fully loaded double the number of passengers. This is a misleading statement if it refers to maximum carrying capacity ; the question is what is the average number of passengers carried by both classes? It is probable that, apart front Bank Holidays and special occasions, the average number is about the same, so that the cost per passenger mile carried will be in the same proportion as that between car miles. "The Times " correspondent appears to think that in the cost per car mile, when a fair charge is made for depreciation and upkeep of the lines, the Motor Omnibus will be the cheaper of the two, and I agree with him. Personally, I look forward to the time when the 34-passenger Motor Omnibus will be run at a cost for fuel, wages, tyre and other repairs, and an ample sum for depreciation, of 6d. a mile. On the other hand, if we turn to the report of the London United Trams, which is given in "The Times " of the date named, we find it stated that the London United Tramway Co. has not yet been able to put by a depreciation fund, and that, therefore, the costs of this company, and probably of most others, have hitherto been wholly fallacious. No one who has travelled on the lines of the London United Tramways Co. can have failed to notice the heavy charge which will come on that company in a year or two when the roadway has to be repaired. The cars have only been running a short time, but the thunderous noise made over certain stretches of the line is such as to constitute a public nuisance, and this noise must be accompanied by heavy wear and tear both to the road and to the cars themselves.
I have looked carefully into a number of tramway costs since March 1st, and I find that the figures vary very considerably, but the city of Liverpool, which is worked on a very large scale, may be taken as an average. Last year there were 11,700,000 car miles run, carrying 113,000,000 passengers—or under to passengers per car mile on the average. The cost as shown was 6.86d. per mile, or .71d. per passenger mile. I find that the total capital expenditure is 1;1,863,00o. The cost is debited with 21 per cent. interest and 2: per cent. depreciation and sinking fund. Now this is a very favourable example of a tramway enterprise in a large town. The part to be criticised is the maintenance cost. This works out at about 4-67,000, or 1.38d. per car mile, which is only 3.6 per cent, on the capital expenditure. Is it reasonable to suppose that the upkeep of the rails and of the cars should be carried out for such a figure? Would any railway man put it at less than double the above figure? Then again, take the item of depreciation. Is depreciation at 21 per cent. a reasonable depreciation on this class of work? My own view is that the maintenance charge of 1.384:1. ought to be supplemented by nearly an equal amount for proper maintenance, so that the 6.86d. ought to be 7.86d. per car mile, or o.82 per passenger mile, and this I believe to be a fair cost in Liverpool and a fair average cost all over the country. As to whether Motor Omnibuses of the proper size to carry the same average service of passengers could not be run, including all proper charges, for a less sum than the above, my opinion is (judging from ,the very short experience and the satisfactory results obtained up to the present) that such figures as .7d. to .8d. per passenger mile are quite likely to be reached in the future.
To sum up—in all places where the traffic is congested, the roads narrow, and speed and convenience of the travelling public of the greatest importance, I consider the Motor Omnibus superior to the electric tram.
"What Manchester says to-day England will be repeating to-morrow" is one of the proud boasts of Cottonopolis. If this be true it is satisfactory to learn that Manchester has taken the plunge into the sea of public motor transport_ The Tramways Committee have bought two double-decked motor omnibuses—" the nucleus," predicts a Manchester writer, "of what will no doubt develop into an important branch of municipal work."