OPINIO YS and QUERIES
Page 47
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor invites correspondence on all subjects connected with the use of commercial motors. Letters should be written on only one side of the paper. The right of abbreviation is reserved and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
TECHNICAL TRAINING FOR THE VOLUNTARY SERVICES.
I HAVE read with interest the articles in your journal regarding the good work being carried out by certain motor firms in the training for the -voluntary services, aml thought it might interest you to knr;i.v that this company, which has recently been formed to take over the commercial-vehicle .business of Pointing, Ltd., of Leeds. has for the past two months been iiistrumental in training the Women's voluntary services in the Skyrack division of Yorkshire in ambulance driving and convoy work.
The schedule of training which we are giving comprises convoy driving, naanceuvring vehicles in a confined space, a short course on running repairs, map reading and route finding, driving in convoy with dimmed side lights only, and driving in similar conditions with gas masks, loading and unloading vehicles as applied to ambulance work and the decontamination of vehic:es.
We are in the fortunate position of having a few light vans and lorries which we have been able to loan for the purpose Of this 'training, and the course has been carefully planned.out by our Mr. Trickey, who has personally 'inaugurated the first of these classes in the Wharfedale, Aireborough and Pudsey areas. These classes are now in full swing and are proving very popular. As only approximately ten persons can be dealt with in any one class and there are some 300-400 drivers required for the Skyrack district, it looks as though we shall have a busy time for some time yet.
WM. E. TRICKEY • Managing Director, For W. E. Trickey (Leeds), Ltd.
RAILWAY: STOCKHOLDERS DEPRECATE ROAD SPENDING.
YOUR. paragraph headed "Ill-timed Anti-road Propaganda," which appeared in your issue dated April 21, referring to ray letter in Vie Times, has an odd sound in Budget week, when the country is facing an expenditure of ,t1,300,000,000 in a single year.
What I suggested was that an analysis of the traffic passing through any area should be made before vast expenditure upon high-speed roads was entered upon. I need hardly say that, from the beginning, the Stockholders Union has wholeheartedly associated itself with the endeavour, which I .believe is shared alike by the railway companies and the principal road hauliers, to secure a measure of order in our national transport system. Nor has the Union ever quarrelled with the wish of the railway companies, which has been repeated again and again since the Square Deal proposals came up for discussion, that there should be no interference with their road competitors.
The point I made, however, is that there is a third party which cannot be ignored, that is, the British public, and I cannot but believe that the British Road Federation will agree withme that no big expenditure
should be incurred which is not equitable to the taxpayers who will have to meet the bill. Plainly, changes will follow the proposed co-ordination of our transport system, and it appears to me only good sense that the possibility of diverting to the railways heavy traffic carried over long distances should be explored before taxpayers are asked to find very large sums of money. In any. case, " ill-timed anti-road propaganda" is not an apt phrase to describe the proposal.
ERNEST SHORT, General Secretary, For The British Railway Stockholders Union, Ltd. London, S.W.I.
[We would have bran more inclined to believe in the
sincerity of Mr. Short's appeal on behalf • of the poor British taxpayers if he had not so obviously an " axe to grind." He has rather spoilt his case for the saving of money on the roads by his suggestion that road traffic should return to the railways. " Is he really concerned as to the position of the taxpayer or is it possible that the dividends of the members of the Union have influenced his judgment? He should remember that road transport pays for vastly more than it obtains and that firstclass roads are now of even greater importance to the safety of the country than are railway lines.—Eo.
MUST TESTERS OF BUSES BE SPECIALLY LICENSED?
DUAING a discussion between a number of my friends, the point arose as to the driving of a doubledeck bus by garage hands not in possession of p.s.v. driving licences.
Somebody stated that a case was recently heard in Scotland where a mechanic had been fined for driving such a vehicle while not in possession of a p.s.v. driving licence. The point we wish cleared up is :—Must any person who drives a doubleor single-deck bus, whether on test in the works or on the public highway, be in possession of this licence? Of course it is understood that all regular bus drivers must hold the proper licence.
You will see that the point at issue is whether every man who works in a place where buses are built, repaired or maintained, must have a suitable licence covering the various types of vehicle which he may handle during the course of his daily task. G. H. GILLMAN, Kingston-on-Thames.
[Following the receipt of this inquiry we communicated with the Ministry of Transport and received the following reply.—ED.i I AM directed by the Minister of Transport to refer to I your letter dated April 21, 1939, and to state that the Minister has no power to interpret the provisions of an Act of Parliament or Regulations made thereunder, and the questions you ask can be determined only in a court of law. He is, however, of the opinion that where a vehicle ordinarily used as a public service vehicle is, for the time being, not being used as a public service vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930-7, the driver need not be in possession of a public service vehicle driver's licence.
The answer to your second question [We said that we s13
took the view that in such cases, where vehicles weigh over 211. tons, an h.g.v. driving licence would be sufficient, as it would be unduly restrictive and unnecessary for every driver in this class to be required to possess the p.s.v. driver's licence.—ED..1 depends upon the meaning of the words "constructed or adapted for hauling or carrying goods or burden of any description" in Section 31 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and their application to a particular vehicle, but the possession by a driver of a heavy goods vehicle driver's licence does, in the view of the Minister, remove the possibility of doubt of the driver contravening Section 31 of the Act of 1934. You will appreciate that some vehicles constructed for use as public service vehicles are clearly constructed for the carriage of goods or burden, whilst others equally clearly are not.
Ministry of Transport, F. GORDON TUCKER. London, W.C.2.
A CASE WHICH CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION.
AS a regular reader of The Commercial Motor, I would greatly appreciate your advice on the following matter.
I am employed by a firm of engineers and agents as a motor driver. On Sunday, April 2, I was sent to Leicester to collect a motor lorry and bring it to Prudhoe under limited trade plates, and had the usual destination ticket, which was plainly marked " Pa_csengers None." I brought this lorry back and was never even stopped by a policeman on the journey.
A few days later our local policeman called and took particulars _of, the destination ticket, and on May 1 I received a summons charging me with carrying a passenger and aiding and abetting my employer.
There was definitely no one in the cab with me on the whole of the journey and I feel very indignant about being charged with an offence I did not commit. P.T.
Prudhoe.
[We are afraid that we cannot say much to help you in the matter you put before us. Failing witnesses, you can only declare on oath that you had no one with you in the vehicle, and if you can get anyone to support you this would certainly help your case. Possibly you stopped at a rest-house or a petrol station which could give you a letter to the effect that you were alone. It would be advisable for you to write immediately to the clerk to the magistrates, pointing out that you cannot understand the reason for the summons, that you did not carry a passenger, that you were not stopped by the police at any time on the journey, and that it must be a case of mistaken identity.—En.]
WHAT A GOOD OIL ENGINE CAN DO ON REGULAR SERVICE,
miANY haulage contractors have been making inquiries "'from time to time about installing oil engines in the lighter types of lorry. It may therefore be of considerable interest to some of your readers to know that quite recently a Bedford short-wheelbase model, powered by a Gardner 4LK engine, and coupled to a Scammell semitrailer, has completed no less than 80,000 miles in a year's work, and has given the extraordinary consumption of 23 m.p.g., with 13 tons gross weight. This is equal to 299 gross ton-m.p.g., which may be called a wonderful performance.
This engine is of only 3.8 litres capacity, the R.A.C. rating being 22.5 h.p. and the bore and stroke 3f ins. and 51 ins., giving 53 b.h.p. at 2,000 r.p.m.
It should be remembered that this result was obtained with an articulated vehicle, which some claim to be a14
easier on engines than the single-frame type; also, that the mileage of 80,000 was run on a flat main road.
With suitable gearing, there is no doubt that, even or( a hilly road, the engine would take the load; but for a 8.8-litre unit, a gross weight of 13 tons is on the high side.
This engine, fitted into a well-known make of chassis (not articulated), with an unladen weight of 2-1tons and a pay load of 6 tons, giving a total weight of 81 tons, provides ideal conditions of operation.
Leeds. W. H. GODDARD.
BACK-AXLE ATTACHMENT OF TOW ROPE.
I HAVE recently had an argument as to which is the best place to secure a tow rope to the towing vehicle, if it be impracticable to secure it to the chassis.
My theory is that, providing the rear-axle casing is strong enough, this is the best position; but my acquaintance states that there is a grave risk of pulling the axle away from the chassis, and, therefore, the rope should be fixed to the body.
In my opinion, this is incorrect, because if the rope be secured to the body the strain will be passed through the latter to the chassis, and thence through the springs and shackles to the spring-holding-down bolts; whereas, when fixed to the axle, no strain is imposed on other than the axle itself, as this is where the drive originates.
Middlesbrough. R.V.W.
[You are right in assuming that the best place to attach a tow rope to a towing vehicle is the back axle, where no other special arrangements are provided. There is no possible chance of the axle being pulled away from the chassis, as it is the axle which takes the driving load, and you might persuade your friend by pointing out that if he could imagine an axle by itself—without any chassis or body, but some means for propulsion—this could itself do the work. Actually, the only way in which there is any likelihood of pulling the axle away from the chassis is by attaching the tow rope to the chassis or body. —Er1.1
WHEN PART OF THE LOAD FELL OFF .
AS a reader of your journal, I would welcome your advice. I own a Fordson long-wheelbase 3-tonner engaged on retail coal work. While the vehicle was turning a corner on a very bad road leading to a housing estate, several bags of coal fell off. As it happened, two policemen were watching. They took all particulars, and one of them counted the sacks, the total being 98 bags weighing 4 tons 18 cwt. They said they would summon me for (1) overloading and (2) loading dangerously.
I always though that, according to law, one could carry 12 tons on four wheels. Is this correct? What do you say would be my best defence, as I already have two endorsements on my licence and am rather worried?
Tamworth. L.C.
[The permissible gross weight of a four-wheeler is 12 tons, but this would obviously be ridiculous in many cases. The only other proviso is that a vehicle must not be loaded dangerously. Normally, a load 50 per cent. above the rated capacity of the vehicle is considered not to be out of order in certain circumstances. This means that you could carry 4 tons 10 cwt on a 3-tonner. The police will, however, probably found their case on the fact that some of your bags of coal fell off, and on this they may claim that the vehicle was loaded dangerously. We are afraid that your only possible defence is that you were not actually carrying a dangerous load so far as the weight was concerned and that the bags fell only because of the bad state of the road.—En.]