Letters to the Editor
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Government Must Back Trolleybuses
pp EFERRING to the letter, "Tell Us the Truth," in your " issue of July 22, I suggest the decline in the use, but not the popularity, of the trolleybus is attributable to:
(1) The absence of any encouragement on the part of the Government towards the greater use of a form of power produced entirely from the resources of this country. This is in marked contrast to the policy of many countries abroad.
(2) The higher cost and long delay in the delivery ipf trolleybuses, now manufactured only by builders of diesel buses, which are, of course, mass-produced.
(3) The failure of the Central Electricity Generating Board to encourage operators to use current for traction purposes. In this connection, I cannot refrain from pointing out that it is not for philanthropic reasons that the vendors of motorbuses and oil are to be seen at transport conferences. Many a deal is clinched in such convivial surroundings.
(4) Largely because of the abandonment of trolleybuses in London, the sheep-like tendencies of some operators have been brought to the fore and a belief has thus gained credence that trolleybuses are a past number. This is, of course, not true, because some of the most efficient undertakings in this country are those which operate and are developing trolleybuses.
It is, I suggest, deplorable that, following the case of South Shields, we see Belfast, Huddersfield and Nottingham preparing to jettison their trolleybus undertakings, to the detriment of the health and comfort of the travelling public. I would urge that before it is too late Members of Parliament should raise the matter in an endeavour to dislodge the Government from its present laissez-faire attitude and have adopted, instead, a policy more favourable to the retention and extension of trolleybus traction.
Erdington, Birmingham. G. B. CLAYDON.
Have Coaches Progressed Backwards ?
A RE modern coaches as comfortable as those built in
1939 or shortly after the war? In 1939, coaches were 27 ft. 6 in. long and 7 ft. 6 in. wide, and had 32 seats, with the driver in a separate half-cab. Now they are generally 30 ft. by 8 ft., with a full front and the driver seated in the passenger saloon. The normal capacity is 41 seats.
We have gained, first, two seats beside the driver, and the other seven seats are theoretically contained in a space measuring 8 ft. by 2 ft. 6 in. In fact, all the scats are narrower, give no support for the thighs and demand an upright posture. In addition, they are more rigid and the passenger feels every bump.
Stockingford, Nuneaton. G. W. FOwELL.
Why are B.R.S. Average Loads Low ?
READ with interest the article by Janus entitled "Yardsticks?" (The Commercial Motor, July 22). I agree that the statistics in the 1952 and 1958 surveys can only be approximate, and am in general agreement with the arithmetical conclusions reached.
The figures in relation to British Road Services are rather surprising. The 1958 survey does not provide separate figures for B.R.S., as was done in 1952, and I have there fore used the British Transport Commission's annual accounts for both years. These confirm that the average weekly tonnage carried per B.R.S. vehicle in 1958 was 5 per cent, below that of 1952.
To my way of thinking the most surprising feature is not so much the 5 per cent, drop, but the fact that the average weekly load per vehicle was as tow as 20.5 tons in 1952 and 19.5 tons in 1958. I have calculated this by dividing the total tons carried in each year by the total number of vehicles, and then sub-dividing to reach a weekly figure.
Using the B.T.C. figures in conjunction with the 1952 and 1958 surveys, the 'average weekly amounts carried per vehicle other than C licence and B.R.S. was 49 tons in 1952 and 54 tons in 1958. Assuming that the sources of my calculations are the same as those used by Janus, I should be interested to know whether he can offer any explanation why the average load per B.R.S. vehicle should be so much lower than that for other A and B-licence vehicles.
London, W.1.S. C. BOND, Controller of Transport, Stewarts and Lloyds, Ltd.
[Mr. Bond's letter emphasizes my point about the difficulty of finding statistics that can be compared with each other. Both his figures and mine would support the contention that the operating efficiency of independent "hauliers has increased whereas that of B.R.S. has declined. But it would not be fair to B.R.S. to compare their average weekly tonnage per vehicle of 19.5 in 1958 with the figure of 54 tons for other hauliers. Account must be taken of the length of haul. In other words, if the average B.R.S. vehicle carries less than half the tonnage, it probably carries it twice as far. This must be an assumption, for there is nothing to guide us in either the 1958 Ministry Survey or the British Transport Commission's report for that year.--JANus.]
Driver Betrayed His Trust
IN his letter published on August 5; Trunkie surpasses himself in stupidity. If a driver or anyone else chooses
• to live above his income, that is his business, but I fail to see why his employer should be called upon to act as a cut-rate money-lender. The driver mentioned by Trunkie betrayed the trust placed in him, and men such as he are better out of the road transport industry.
Neston, Cheshire. STEPHEN MUSTELL.
England's First Operators of Bulk Carriers?
mAY I point out that in my original letter (published LV August 5)! referred to an expendable paper sack, and not an expanding sack. Readers may be interested to know that we were the first operators in England of specialized bulk-delivery vehicles for animal feeding stuffs and so on, and have probably the largest fleet of such vehicles run for hire or reward.
Portstade. G. FLEXER, Managing Director, James and George Flexer, Ltd.