Municipal Motorbuses : The Merthyr Tydvil Bill.
Page 8
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Much interesting evidence was given before the Select Committee of the House of Lords which considered the, Merthyr Tydvil Corporation Bill, last week, the promoters meeting with strong opposition from three railway companies to that portion -of the measure empowering the Corporation to provide and run rnoto r-orn nib uses. Mr. Freeman, KG., for the promoters (for whom Messrs. Sharpe, Pritchard and (To. were Parliamentary agents), explained that there were five railway companies connected with Merthyr, most of whose stations were placed in their present positions some 50 years ago. Since that time very large groups of houses had grown up at considerable distances from the stations, and it was felt to be an extreme inconvenience for many persons to reac.h them. Some parts of the borough might be miles away from the stations to which people wanted to go. The promoters would have thought that the railway companies would have hailed the provision of the motorbuses with satisfaction, because they would feed the railways by bringing to them passengers who had new great difficulty in getting there. counsel denied the point in the Taff Vale Railway petition that there was intention of competition; the facilities would be entirely supplementary.
Mr. '1', A. Rees, the Town Clerk of Merthyr Tydvil, stated that the electors had approved of the promotion of the Bill,
No objection was made to the sitting of Lord Eitzwilliam on the Committee when it was mentioned that he was very closely interested in motorbus manufacture, and that it was probable Iris companies might be called upon to tender, supposing the Bill passed. Mr. Balfour Browne, KG., for the Taff Vale Company, expressed the opinion that his lordship's companies would not ever have a chance of tendering. Mr. D. W. Jones, the Mayor, said that the borough was -continually increasing both in population and rateable value. The total population was about 77,000, the length of the borough about 10 miles, and the largest width about five miles. Motorbuses were very desirable in such a district, where the populations were fairly continuous, and they all had business in the centre of the town, and railway facilities within the borough were inadequate. It had been decided as the most favourable scheme to experiment with motorbuses rather than to incur a very large expenditure to lay down a tramway which might possibly not pay. Cross-examined, witness said the Corporation intended to buy, out of the 15,000 it asked for powers to use, seven motorbuses, five of which would at first be placed upon the road. It was advised that it could secure a very good bus now for 1600, and it was considered possible to build the necessary garages for a few hundred pounds, as it had suitable premises in the borough. It expected to get buses holding 16 or 18 passengers, and it was proposed to charge id. per mile. The Great Western Railway Company ran motorbuses in several places in South Wales, and were increasing their number. Mr. F. S. Simons, ex-Mayor, supported the evidence of the Mayor, and, during cross-examination, said that, if it was found that the motorbuses could be worked , satisfactorily, the Lolial Government Board would be applied to for powers to borrow more money for extension. Testimony was also given by Mr. A. Daniel, Chairman of the Merthyr Parliamentary Committee, and Mr. Enoch Morrell, an alderman and Chairman of the Education Committee, and miners' agent.
Col. R. E. 13. Crompton, a member of the Institutions of Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, and Electrical Engineers, President of the Automobile and Electrical Engineers, and Chairman of the Commercial Motor Users' Association, said that, from his experience, the district affected was one in which he thought motorbuses would he of great service. Out of 15,000
sufficient number of buses could be purchased to show whether the service would be popular, and it would be possible to ascertain the cost of working those buses under circumstances which would show to the Inspector of the Local Government Board that it would pay when the fixed expenses were spread over a large s Plant. He knew no cheaper test of requirements than by a service of motorbuses. An average speed of nine miles an hour was a moderate estimate; it would probably be more. With seven cars it would not be possible to run a very frequent service, and he would advise in the first instance a more frequent service on only part of the route. There was no doubt that 16 to 18-passenger buses to-day could be worked for Sci, per mile, and the receipts would come to Sd. or 9d, a mile, according to whether they were 16 or l8-passenger buses. Seven single-deck buses could be bought for £4,200, and £800 was given for running sheds, etc., although he did not think it would he necessary to spend more than £200 on sheds. He allowed 20 per cent, of capital expenditure for depreciation, and 3 per cent. on the running. sheds. During the preliminary stages, calculating the cars as being half-loaded, at hi. per passenger per mile, there would be no loss to the Corporation in working this undertaking. Cross-examined, witness said that
the actual figure of the cost of working was 7.6d. per mile, but he had left a margin. Mr. Balfour Browne quoted from a paper read by Col. Crompton at the Institution of Civil Engineers, in which he calculated the working expenses of a motorbus at 12.945d. per mile; but witness pointed out that these figures were now old, and affected a double-decked, 34-passenger bus. Moreover, there had been a very great improvement in the two years since the figures were compiled in motorbus construction, He was told that it was possible to get a driver in the district in question for a 16-passenger bus for 28s. The cost for the driver and conductor was 1.5d. per mile. The number of working days per annum for six buses working would be 305. IIis figure for fuel and stores was 1.9d., for total repairs, including tires, 2.8d., for depreciation 1.4d. He gave evidence on the Todmorden Bill, and he did not see why the service there should not be a success. He knew Todmorden "made an awful mess of it." They did not employ an engineer, and went into the open market and bought buses from anybody, and he believed they had come to grief. He had calculated the Merthyr Tydvil buses to run ten hours a day, and it would be much longer than that. The opinion had been held for a long time that tramways were eventually necessary when traffic had been developed, but he thought that, now the motor-omnibus was being perfected to such an extent, it would not be superseded eventually by the tramline. Ile thought motorbuses would pay in Merthyr as they had paid in towns of similar conditions, and had been a means of developing a traffic which, in those cases, had eventually fed the tramways. Re-examined, Col. Crompton said that economy in the running of motorbuses was improving very much. For the Taff Vale Railway Company, Mr Ammon Beasley, the general manager, gave evidence to show that the borough was well catered for in regard to railway service, and, having regard to population of the district to be served, he could not conceive that there was the remotest possibility of the buses paying. If they did not pay, the railway companies would have to pay in rates a large part of the cost of maintaining opposition. He had no doubt that the valley in question would be the next to be taken into consideration with regard to running rail motors on the Taff Vale. He thought the furthest distance of a house from one of their stations would be under a mile. Crossexamined, witness pointed out that the motorbuses would take a certain amount of traffic from the railways which would have to share the expense consequent upon their inevitable failure.
Mr. Robert Hammond, consulting engineer, Westminster, a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers, of the Electrical Engineers, and of the Mechanical Engineers, said the total cost of working the Todmorden motorbrises dining their first year's working was 17.83d. per mile, the cost, adding 1770 as sinking fund and £140 as interest, being 20.83± per mile. The route at Todmorden was 'very comparable with that at Merthyr, and, though the smaller car could pick up more passengers by running more frequently, if there were two drivers and two conductors, and all the other expenses were doubled, the cost would be rather more in comparison than that of the larger car. If the Todmorden costs were repeated at Merthyr, to sustain a service to cover the cost, 300,000 passengers would have to be carried at id. per mile rate, which witness said was absurd. He thought Merthyr was a most risky place without conditions of success, and he had known the district for 30 years. He feared there would be a dead loss from the first day, and Parliament was asked to allow an experiment which, on the promoters own figures, could not succeed. Col. Crompton was always optimistic, and he thought that there would not be a repetition of the fiasco which happened at Todmorden when they (lid their best. Out of the £6,000 which Parliament voted to Todmorden they had lost £3,000 in the first year. Todmorden, said witness, in cross-examination, had two Critehley-Norris cars, two Leyland and two Ryknield cars. As to motorcars, Col. Crompton was a great authority, but he was unsound on costs. He agreed with the estimated receipts of 8d. per car mile. Re-examined, witness said that, even if Col. Crompton's figures were right, the receipts and expenditure only just balanced, and left nothing at all for the interest.•
Mr. J. W. Woodthorpe, a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, also gave evidence, quoting figures to show the impossibility of the buses paying. Mr, Balfour Browne, K.C., for the Taff Vale, and Mr. Talbot, K,C., for the Great Western Railway Company, addressed the Committee, contending that the experiment was speculative and that the buses could not possibly pay. The companies would suffer not only from the loss of a certain amount of traffic, but from increased rates. As a result, the Committee decided that, with regard to the clause providing for the running of motorbuses, the promoters of the Bill had not made out their case, and this portion was therefore thrown out.