Did They Miss the Bus?
Page 14
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I READ with incredulity the article "They Missed the 1 Bus . . ," by Mr. Firth Butterfield, in your issue dated January 28.
The intention was apparently to suggest that those hauliers who had failed to negotiate a voluntary acquisition by the Commission had missed a good thing and would get a worse deal by waiting to be compulsorily acquired. At the end, however, Mr. Butterfield appeared to perform a right-about-turn by saying: "It is my belief that if the British Transport Commission continues its negotiations in the reasonable manner exhibited during the past year, few appeals will be submitted."
The real position is that up to the presentno one has seriously thought that the British Transport Commission would not act equitably when dealing with compulsorily acquired undertakings; it cannot act in this way unless it treats the compulsorily acquired undertakings at least as well as it treated the voluntarily acquired undertakings. Proof that the holding of this view was correct came on January 26, when the chairman of the British Transport Commission stated publicly: "We have looked carefully at the Transport Act and appreciate the importance of treating equally all who are similarly circumstanced. The latecorners need not fear that they will be unfairly treated if they are late to come within the fold."
In view of the foregoing I submit that there is no justification for suggesting that those operators who have failed to solicit the voluntary acquisition of their undertakings will be penalized and will have therefore "missed the bus."
In conclusion, may I congratulate and thank you for the very fine leader, "The S.M.T. Deal a Challenge," in your issue of February 4? To those of us who believe that private enterprise can do a better job than a nationalized outfit, and who are determined to fight to the last ditch for the British way of life, your words come as a very great encouragement.
JOHN M. BIRCH.
London, N W.5 ' (For Birch Bros., Ltd.)
TNDER the heading "They Missed the Bus," in your issue dated January 28, Mr. Butterfield certainly misses, himself, some of the most important aspects. When the Road Haulage Association decided to face nationalization the decision of the National Council was unanimous and most of the big concerns he mentions were parties to that resolution.
It may be surprising to Mr. Butterfield, but often, as now, a large majority of people believed that road transport under private enterprise was better for the country than under nationalization. However, as soon as it became known that several firms had gone over in voluntary acquisition the Road Haulage Association was very definite that every firm should be free to do what that firm deemed to be the best. The Minister's assurance in the House of Commons, last week, that there would not be discrimination between voluntary and compulsory acquisition, was very reassuring.
Mr Butterfield infers that financial interests are the only factor that govern road transport contractors. I can assure him that most hauliers realize that financially they will probably be much better off with nationalization, whether they will be happier under the new
e6 conditions, or whether the country as a whole will be better, remains to be seen.
In his article Mr. Butterfield again misses the point, that many firms who offered their businesses under voluntary acquisition were not accepted.
Apathy is a word often used and in this case carelessly so, the opposition to nationalization of road transport impressed the whole country, and at this stage to use the word apathy is, to my mind, futile.
I am satisfied that, due entirely to the actions of the Road Haulage Association, many of us have had and will have an extra year or two owning our own
businesses. H. L. WALKER. Thornaby-on-Tees.
IN this, my first communication to a trade paper for A many years, may I be permitted to resent the smug
satisfaction with which Mr. Butterfield writes off as fools and incompetents those hauliers who did not imme diately rush to lay their goods and chattels at the feet of the B.T.C.? According to Mr. Butterfield, he alone saw the writing on the wall and urged or even (to use his own words' "bullied " a favoured few to offer theii businesses for voluntary acquisition. while the rest of us were sunk ir apathy and sloth.
It is scarcely worth reminding you readers that there are many of us te whom this question of nationalization is not merely an issue of pounds shillings and pence. We fought tin Transport Act frankly and fearlessly because we wen convinced that the service given to the public by roac transport under free enterprise could not be equallec or even approached at similar cost by a huge organiza tion such as the B.T.C.
We lost the fight; the Transport Act was passed, am as law-abiding citizens we must take and endure what ever consequences are forced upon us. It comes a littl;
hard, however, if an extra edge is to be put on III bitterness of defeat by the reproaches of those who, ii
their own particular business or profession, have perhaps, benefited financially by these acquisitions, tha we did not, for the hope of extra gain, join the rank of those who, for reasons best known to themselves decided voluntarily to negotiate the sale of thei businesses Nevertheless, may I add that even Mr. Butterfield cal have no certainty that firms acquired voluntarily wil gain any material advantage over those acquired corn pulsorily. Only the other day, in the House o Commons, the Minister of Transport gave an assuranc that, as a general principle, no more compensatio would be given where companies are acquired by nega tiation than would be payable if they were compulsoril
acquired under the Act. B. WINTERBOTTOM. Wilpshire.
CONCERNING the article by Mr. F. Butterfieh • -" They Missed the Bus . . . ," published in your issu dated January 28. he states that we hauliers refuse to offer our businesses to the British Transpo; Commission, but, to quote an old saying. " Does h know his taters "
Before he wrote such an article he should have mad sure of the facts, The B.T.C. wanted to take over onl a certain number of haulage concerns, and it would have been foolish for others to have asked for trouble.
Birmingham, 30. E. SMITH.
THE PITCH-DIGGER BELONGED TO A CONTRACTOR THE article, "A Haulier Who Looks for Trouble!"
▪ by Mr. H Scott Hall, published in your issue dated
December 17, makes very interesting reading. We would, however, like to point out that the illustration No. 6, described as a Ransomes and Rapier track-laying appliance digging pitch, shows one of our excavators of this make fitted with forward-shovel equipment and operated by our driver.
The machine, which was bought new in 1948 together with an old one of similar type, has been on hire for several years to Midland Tar Distillers, Ltd., at its Peterborough works and has been loading pitch on to both rail and road transport almost continuously during that time. G. TAYLOR.
Peterborough. (For Eames and Son, Ltd.)
[We have drawn the attention of the author to the point you raise, and he says that it was not his intention to suggest that the machine in question actually belonged to the haulier, Mr. Lee, although he admits that that impression may have been given by the caption. It was one of Mr. Lee's tasks to convey the pitch due by this machinc.—ED.1 BE FAIR TO THE TROLLEYBUS ASPECIAL correspondent, writing to " The Commercial Motor" dated February 4, under the leading Be Fair to the Trolleybus," doubts the wisdom A the decision of the London Transport Executive to replace trams with oil-engined buses instead of with :rolleybuses, Considering the brains at the disposal of iuch an undertaking as the L.T.E., it can be safely tssumed that this decision was arrived at after !,xhaustive research and investigation of all the relevant !actors.
An observant Londoner can conclude that one of the 3rincipal reasons for the abandonment of trolleybuses vas the difficulty of extending their routes or of divertng them from these, even temporarily. Serious aecilents, big fires, burst water mains or even major road -epairs provide the need for some of these diversions.
The experts would have access to figures concerning he adoption of diversions from the normal route over t long period, and from these they could deduce the iisruption in business that can be caused by the inability if fixed-route transport to adapt itself to circumstances.
It would perhaps be considered an unfair argument o mention the plight of a trolleybus in a realty thick Og, when it has wandered from its course, pulled the ioles off the wires, and the conductor is totally unable o even see the wires, let alone replace the poles.
It is conceded that, within its limits, the modern trolleyms does credit to all those concerned in Its design, nanufacture and operation, but it must inherently suffer rom some of the drawbacks of the rail-bound vehicle, It is suggested that the minds of the R.T.E. and other nanagements are mechanically, rather than electrically, nclined—we may assume, therefore, that there is a bias n favour of the oil engined vehicle; but the desire to Idopt a more suitable tool for a job, when protracted :xperience proves the limits of the existing tool, seems o suggest courage and foresight rather than bias. It akes courage to drop plans in the light of such :nowledge. and foresight to proclaim faith in a type of 'chicle that has enormous potentialities.
Looking back, we see the trolleybus as a natural tep forward from the tram, in the same way as the steam, and later the electric tram, was a railway system applied to the roads.
The trolleybus has much to recommend it, its speed, silence and absence of exhaust fumes, but the oilengined bus has vastly improved in these respects.
Many will agree with your correspondent about the regrettable necessity of importing oil for road transport: it is a reminder of the plea that used to be put forward in favour of steam lorries—that they ran on British coal. But even if electricity be the answer to the one problem, there still remains the vast imports of rubber for tyres, etc., without which road transport would soon cease.
London, S.W. l5. F. PLEDGER.
CAN BRAKING STRAIN THE TRANSMISSION?
WITH regard to the short article, " A Study of TV Advertisements is Often Instructive," under "Passing Comments," in your issue dated February 4, as a driver with no technical experience, I am rather puzzled by your uncertainty concerning possible stressing of the transmission during braking, unless a powerful transmission-type of brake be employed.
Perhaps you could raise this matter again, as I would imagine that with a propeller shaft running at, say, 2,500 r.p.m., reducing this to rest by a fierce brake application would result in considerable stress. On heavy vehicles this may be insignificant, but on older types, where strength is often sacrificed to low weight and cost, surely there must be excessive loading.
One of our men had the bad habit of "driving on the • brakes," and it cost my employer quite a lot of money in new axles, crown wheels and pinions, apart from other things. The van he drove was a standard British pre-war model without transmission brake.
Southall. Middlesex. H. OSBORNE.
[Violent braking may cause serious stressing of springs, bend the chassis frame in light vehicles and turn the axle in relation to its normal position; if the clutch were left in there would no doubt also be some torsional stress on the propeller shaft, causing stressing of the final drive and axle shafts by the sudden stopping of the engine, but if the clutch were disengaged there will probably be less strain than that caused by the driving power. In fact, in the former case, the wheels would have to be locked to exercise any considerable effect, and only a very bad driver would normally act in this way. With a transmission brake the matter would be vastly different, because all the braking power would be conveyed through the propeller shaft, the final drive and axle shafts, unless the brake were mounted on the axle itself, when the propeller shaft would merely be stopped but not carry the braking torque. The power of such a brake is also multiplied by the ratio of the final-drive gearing. Some of our readers may have different views on this matter, in which case we shall be pleased to hear from them.—En.] JUDGE CONDEMNS ATTEMPT TO STOP TWO-WAY RADIO I N awarding damages to a Bristol car-hire concern wrongfully expelled from a trade association for fitting two-way radio telephone to its cars, the Judge asked: "Why do they object to modernization?"
As the company which thus first equipped a hire fleet in this country, in August, 1947, and which has since fitted over 50 fleets with two-way radio, we believe that such repressive action is not only retrogressive, but also against the interests of the Nation_ After exhaustive trials over periods of up to 18 months, all users report great savings (generally of 25 to 30 per cent.) in three scarce and vital commodities—petrol, tyres and man-hours. H W WOOLOAR, Cambridge. Director. (For Pye Telecommunications, Ltd.)