AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

The Trolleybus is a Dollar-saver

18th February 1949
Page 19
Page 19, 18th February 1949 — The Trolleybus is a Dollar-saver
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

A Leading Trolleybus Manufacturer Endorses the Views Expressed by our Correspondent in the Article Entitled "Be Fair to the Trolleybus" THE author of the article "Be Fair to the Trolleybus," which appeared in the February 4 issue of

"The Commercial Motor," is evidently well informed.

Having been trained in electrical engineering as well as mechanical, and since those days become a manufacturer of motorbuses and a Producer of the modern electric trolleybuses for 23 years, and still retaining an interest in both types of vehicle. I feel I can view this subject in an unbiased manner.

I fully endorse all your Special Correspondent has to say on the merits of the trolleybus. The drivers and conductors generally prefer them; they are less complicated, and the time required for maintenance is less. Generally, the schedule speeds are higher and the smooth and rapid acceleration unparalleled, and, everything else being equal, the riding of a trolleybus will always show a great advance over the motorbus because of the two 21-ft. trolley-booms, which are sprung under the overhead wire and act as shock absorbers, holding the trolleybus down on the road.

Passengers Wait for Trolleybuses

In Wolverhampton and elsewhere it is noticeable that where there is a queue waiting for transport, and motorbuses and trolleybuses both run on the same route, one frequently sees people allow a motorbus to go by and wait for a trolleybus because they find it so smooth and silent.

The fuel costs vary with the undertaking and, for some reason I have never been able to understand, the electricity of one municipality costs 0.5d., whilst others pay varying but higher prices. One corporation pays I.43d. No doubt the British Electricity Authority will eventually introduce a flat rate. . This question of the fuel, that is, coal for electric supply or oil for motorbuses, is, in my opinion, one of the most important questions and, indeed, of national importance.

Whilst I understand that electricity will not be in free supply until about 1952, nevertheless, I am informed that the electricity authorities would view with very grave concern the shedding of load through the scrapping of trams unless replaced by trolleybuses. Excluding those factories with continuous processes, the tramways and trolleybus load is of major importance, as they take supplies for some 16 hours a day for six days a week and rank higher than the ordinary industrial or domestic load.

From a national point of view, surely it is vitally important that we use our home-produced coal for power rather than send money out of the country to purchase oil fuel?

There is one other side to this question of fuel. We are told that, with the advent of jet propulsion. which is so rapidly forging ahead, the consumption of oil fuel will soon be so great as to tax its resources and probably increase its price. It is significant that the United

States, the biggest producer of oil, has in comparatively recent years increased the operation of electric trolleybuses to a much larger extent than we in this country. Elsewhere overseas, trolleybuses are rapidly gaining ground.

In this country,' trolleybuses labour under a distinct disability inasmuch as it is necessary to obtain parliamentary powers either to change trams to trolleybuses or to open a new route for the latter type of

vehicle. I suggest that the Government departments concerned should see that this state of affairs be speedily remedied, because I understand that; apart from the cost of applying for powers, amounting to several thousands of pounds, the average time required for approval is about 12 months.

Many operators of trolleybuses, and the few chassis manufacturers, are grievously concerned regarding the disproportionate increased cost of electrical equipment for trolleybuses (including the overhead equipment, poles, underground cables) compared with the increased cost of the more complicated motorbus. This question requires immediate and the closest investigation, with a view to reducing costs, which I am sure could easily be achieved, otherwise the electrical manufacturers will find that they have killed the goose that lays the golden eggs; Maybe some electrical manufacturers will consider that in relation to their other activities trolleybus equip, ment is hardly worth bothering about; if that be so, could not they agree to reduce the number of manufacturers from five to two or three and gain in production quantities?

Capital Made Out of Drawback There is one disadvantage that the opponents of the trolleybus never fail to point out, that is, that they are "tied to route." It must be borne in mind, however, that with any undertaking a proportion of motorbuses is bound to .be required to act as feeder services, and to be used for augmenting special services for race meetings, football matches or some other irregular event. The major routes, however, which deal with the bulk of the passenger traffic, are regularly operated, and if they justified the laying out of a tramway service the point surely applies equally well to trolleybuses.

One day the present situation will change: The British Electricity Authority will be trying to sell electricity and passenger transport undertakings sell rides. and there is no doubt which form of transport the average passenger prefers. Where trolleybuses can be economically employed there is this all-important national question of retaining money for fuel within this country, and I thoroughly endorse the remark of your correspondent that "The British Transport Commission should give special consideration to the employment of trolleybuses before it is too late."


comments powered by Disqus