Opinions and Queries
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Is Transport Tribunal Redundant?
IS it not time to raise the question of the continued need 1 for the Transport Tribunal? Whilst any suggestion that it has outlived its usefulness will be looked at askance by some sections of our industry, the need for it to-day should be reconsidered in the light of changed circumstances.
The Transport Tribunal fs the old Railway Rates
Tribunal under a more dignified name. Its history dates back far into the 19th century, when the railways held a predominant position in inland transport. In those days it could with some justification be argued that, to safeguard the public against monopolistic overcharging and possible exploitation, it was essential to set up a powerful body to control the charges which could be levied by the railways.
A welcome feature of the new Bill is the freeing of the railways from their last-century limitations relating to undue preference, equality of charges, and so forth. This recognizes that trade and industry no longer have the same strength of case to demand protection against the railways, as they can now have available so many alternative modes and facilities which remove their dependence on rail transport. The pinnacle of the old system of protection lies in the Transport .Tribunal, which, when the new reforms become effective, will have even less work to do.
Its functions in the future will largely be confined to approving maximum rates for the railways and to rubber-stamping applications for emergency increases in rates by them. In recent years it has had comparatively little work of any great value. Its dead hand has killed all initiative in any positive sales policy by the railways in reaching after additional traffics. Now that the railways are to have a freer hand in respect of rates and charges, there seems little value in retaining the Tribunal.
In public affairs, two bodies meddling with the same subject is rarely satisfactory. There is inevitable division of responsibility. One always has the excuse that its lack of success is due to interference., or prevention, by the other, Beckenham, Kent. RALPH CROPPER.
Low Cost of Oilers
DO not say that your cost Tables are wrong, but 1 the figures for some items are nothing like mine. Take, for example, insurance. I am running oil-engined Vulcan tippers carrying loads of 8 tons and Bedford petrol-engined tippers with 6 tons. The comprehensive insurance on the Vulcans is about £57 per year, but as an agent for the company concerned I obtain this at a reduced rate. You give the figure as about £22 per annum; I do not believe that any company has ever quoted a rate so low, and I operate on a B licence with a, 35-mile radius in the country.
For the Bedfords, I would pay about £42 if I were not an agent; you say a little over £21.
As regards your costs for tyres, you give the same on oil-engined vehicles as for petrol types, whereas I find that tyres on an oiler will give from two to three times more mileage than on a petrol machine. The same thing happens with dumpers working in a quarry, the oilers run far more mileage on their tyres than do the petrol vehicles. The only explanation I can, give for this is that the oil engine seems to cut out the kind of driving known as "snatch and grab."
On the Bedfords, the average is 14,000 miles on 825 x 20 tyres, which have proved by far the best size. Formerly I used 34 x 7, but they would do only about 10,000, and that with careful driving, which, incidentally, is claimed for all my men. My competitors are running on 34 x 7 tyres, over-driving and overloading, and, as a result, are getting between 2,000 and 7000 miles per tyre.
The Vulcans have 36 x 8 equipment and they do 35,000 to 50,000 miles per set. What is more, there is hardly ever a puncture.
Other savings are obtained with the oilers because they are built more strongly with, for example, more hearing area for the kingpins and other parts; brake facings also last longer and the engines are running almost as well as when new after 100,000 miles and perhaps much more. With a cheaper petrol model on this hard work such a mileage might well involve one, or possibly two, replacement engines. This means additional time on repairs and loss of work.
With an oiler I consider that I am easily £4 per day better off; the result is that I can pay my drivers of these vehicles 10s. per week above the normal rate.
I am afraid I could never obtain your rates for county council haulage work on road materials. I obtain more than the figures you give for the short hauls, but not so much for the long. Much, however, depends on conditions at the quarry. Where my vehicles work these are particularly good. If, however, I hadto start all over again to get my living I would rather have one heavy oiler than three light-type petrol machines.
Eardisley. D. SHARPLES.
[We appreciate the remarks from this correspondent and congratulate him on the remarkably good results obtained with his vehicles. In "The Commercial Motor Tales of Operating Costs," published in booklet form, it is pointed out in footnotes that the figures for insurance apply only to vehicles run by ancillary users and that the amounts quoted should be doubled for haulage vehicles. This would make them correspond very closely with the rates quoted in the above letter. We see no reason why he should find tyre life so much greater on oil-engined vehicles, but think that he is fortunate in having unusually carreful. drivers. The mere fact of employing a larger size of tyre would also make a considerable difference.—ED]
Milk Delivery Bottle-neck
WAS particularly interested to read the suggestion 1 from A.W. contained in your issue of October 24. Whilst householders may think A.W.'s idea of milk delivery is good, as a flatlet-dweller in a large house in central London I do not see how this idea could be successfully implemented.
By all means let us have a substitute for glass bottles, but please retain _the idea of individually sealed containers. Most of us are out at business all day and cannot await the daily arrival of the milkman.
Does A.W. visualize rows of milk jugs lined up to enable the milkman to draw off the necessary quantity for each person. Surely this would take considerably longer and not be so hygienic as the present system?
London, W.2. M.C.S.