Steam-wagon Boilers and Gas Firing.
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T m HE CORRECT FIGURES for the consu' ption of gas as a fuel in the fireboxes of steam wagons, although not so optimistic as those which were originally formulated, still leave very substantial grounds for further consideration with a view. to the solution of the problems involved. .
A good average rate of coal consumption on a steam wagon is 81lb. per mile run, day in and day out, loaded and unloaded. A rubber-tyred lorry efficiently employed should do a minimum of 300 miles per week, and this on the above basis calls for a coal consumption of 2.500 lb. during that period. A good quality Welsh steam coal is now costing 22 5s.per ton, so that the weekly fuel bill for a steam wagon using • coal is about 22 10s. Taking the calorific value of coal as 14,000 B.T.U. per lb., and that of gas as 550 B.T.U. per cubic foot, we arrive at the conclusion that the weekly consumption of gas in the same circumstances as those named above would be 74,000 cubic ft. Assuming 3s. per 1000 cubic ft. as the price of gas a fair average figure, and 6d. per 1000 cubic ft.. as the cost of compression, the weekly fuel cost for gao works out at 213. The adoption of compressed gas for the purpose in view would not, therefore, appear to be distinctly an economical step, at any rate so far as direct outlay on fuel is concerned.
The case, however, may. well be examined from other points of view. The price of coal which we have quoted includes delivery to the user's premises ; it does not, however, include the cost of storage—a not inconsiderable item to the owner of a fleet—nor does it take into consideration the cost of internal handling and hisses due to waste and the formation of dust. In use, too, there are expense-3 incidental to the use of this fuel. The necessity for occasional fire replenishment and the consequent accompanying variations in temperature, quite apart from the effect on the exposed firebox and draughts of cold air resulting from unskilled firing causes strains in the boiler, particularly the tubing and firebox, which necessitate after a time expenditure on repairs ; firebars need renewing from time to time, and there is the ever-watchful care necessary to prevent the formation of clinker.. None of these expenses or troubles would be called for with gas as a fuel ; moreover, in the new circumstances the wages of a stoker would be saved. In the case of a large fleet a capable watchman could, with gas as a fuel, make a round of the fleet, having steam up in every wagon by the time the driver was due to commence work. By following the last-named procedure alone and thus giving the wagons a minimum addition of 10 per cent. to its earning time, sufficient will be saved , in many eases to tip the scale of costs in favour of gas.'
On broad lines of national economy it cannot be denied that the use of gas is strongly to be encouraged. No thinking man will attempt to refute the . statement that the burning of raw coal as a direct ' source of heat is wasteful, and no . one. will cavil at steps to eradicate tins wasteful habit. As. is so frequently 'pointed out newadays, the machinery for control of everybody and 'everything exists, and no doubt the question of prohibiting the use of coal in this manner has already been discussed. Such a .measure, however, would act very detrimentally to the vast majority. of established enterprises, and owing to the disturbance to commerce would undoubtedly, on consideration, be turned down almost at once.
So far as steam wagons are concerned, there are three possible • fuels. Coal, whieh for the 'reasons stated should be abrogated ; coke, to the use of • which, in the majority of steam wagons, there are structural and mechanical objections which, although not insuperable, are still such as to prevent the immediate 'change over to this fuel • and gas, the principal objection to the use of which appears to be its high cost. Why should not official action take the direction of compelling a reduction in the price of this commodity which price, on examination:,_ is excessive.
Gas as sold alone brings in a return well in excess of the cost of the coal from which it is produced. Gas companies do not p.ay 45s. a ton for their coal; coke, toe, is selling at a figure now which probably exceeds the gas companies' outlay on coal:. Over and above 'that, there is the revenue derivable from the benzoic and its derivatives and tar and its derivatives, so that the plea for a reduction in the price of gas would appear 'to be a reasonable one. Cannot some steps be taken to bring about such a reduction?
L.G.O. Buses on Gas at Last.
ALARGE AND INFLUENTIAL transport public service company has responsibilities which are in the main unappreciated, indeed, hardly dreamt of, by the general public. It must, too, of necessity deal largely with matters. which would not at first glance appear to be germane to the exercise of its regular functions. Above all, it must be incessantly on the qui vive to take advantage of inventions and improvements in matters relating either to the cost. or operation of its vehicles, Yet, withal, Since the slightest departure from standard, meaning but a trifle on any individual bus or lorry, may well involve an expenditure of thousands of pounds sterling when applied to a whole fleet, quite apart from the incidental and far-reaching effect, on routine and organization, which may in some cases prove the heavier item of expense, it will be realized that the utmost care and most thorough trial are necessary before a decision to efSect a new departure is Made.. For this reason, whereas a large concern appears to the onlooker generally to be the last to embark on a policy involving novel developments, really, and in fact, that company has been the first to take the matter in hand with a view toits.adoptiortif effective. • A striking example of-' his phenomenon is instanced by the. apparently tardy adoption by the London General Omnibus Co. of gas as a fuel for its buses. The first of the 'company's vehicles to be run on gas will, no doubt, make its appearance in the early days of next month—altnost two years *after gas has proved itself to be a satisfactory substitute for petrol. Yet the company concerned has had this possible departure from standard practice in view during the whole-of that time. We, were ourselves momentarily surprised during our editorial inspection of the L.G.O. .system, on venturing an adverse opinion as to the wearing capabilities'of some detailed moving part of the apparatus., to be informed that it has been in continuous service for overs 12 months. In eonneetion with gas fuel, the engineering'stall of the L.G.O.C.. has experimented with, tested, and been corapelled finally to reject almost every device dealing with the subject that is known. They have all in some minor respect been found wanting or not entirely suitable when the need for high standard of effieiency essential in the working of a huge concern of this kind has been realized, and finally the engineers have been compelled to design their own system throughout..
The American Army's Trucks.
THE POSITION with regard to the American Army's motor-truck programme is rather a confusing one. _It will be recalled that the first intentions were to employ, the huge home-production facilities in the U.S.A. to manufacture, to a
very extensive programme indeed, three standardized types of lorries—types that were stated to have been evolved as the result of the pooling of theideas of the leading American chassis builders, but in effect being little more than built-up propositions embodying standard units throughout, with certain special provisions for war service.
At the end of June what appeared to be official news reached this 'country that this whole programme had met with relatively so little success that it had been virtually abandoned in favour of increased production of large numbers of a few of America's leading types of standard trucks. It was announced also that the particular hustlers-in-chief who had been charged by the nation with the responsibility of producing the Liberty trucks had been 'superseded, and that a new department to look after existing factory output -had, been rapidly contrived.
Still more recently reaches us the statement, apparently branded with official Of semi-official authority, that at least one of the original Liberty truck designs has been again thoroughly well tested and is to be taken in hand for quantity production to the extent of the • total of the requirements of all American Government Departments. This new decision is dated 7th June, and is, it is to be hoped, final. No doubt other methods have been adopted to ensure quantity production. It appears as if the previous quariel with the three-ton B-truck programme was not with the chassis, but with the methods of those who were going to make it.