Strong Words on Bus Problems

1st May 1953, Page 77

1st May 1953

Page 77

Page 77, 1st May 1953 — Strong Words on Bus Problems

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

P.T.A. Disappointment at No Reduction of 214 per cent Fuel Tax : Discussion of the Two Interesting Conference Papers UNANIMOUS approval of a protest against the continued heavy taxation of oil fuel was made at the conference of the Public Transport Association, held at Folkestone. The following telegram was sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on April 23: "Meeting of the Public Transport Association assembled at its annual conference at Folkestone records passenger road transport industry profoundly disappointed that in contrast to all-round reduction in luxury taxes Budget proposes no relief of 214 per cent. tax on Diesel fuel oil used in buses. Reconsideration urgently pressed—Stanley Dudman, chairman."

The chairman said that the industry was confronted with ever-growing problems and no sooner were adequate solutions found to these than the advantages were swept away.

Fuel's Luxury Tax The Chancellor had been repeatedly warned that unless relief was given, fares must rise. They had not yet caught up with the last impost of 70. per gallon and further applications to raise them had been made all over the country. Even luxury articles attracted the maximum tax of only 75 per cent..

whereas that on bus fuel, although at the " super-luxury " figure of 214 per cent, had, almost unbelievably, been excluded from the general reduction.

There was also disappointment that although the Minister had power to order the British Transport Commission to divest themselves of control of their bus undertakings, the Bill gave permissive powers rather than an outright obligation.

Synopses of the papers were given last week. Points from the discussion on that dealing with low-viscosity oils, read by Mr. H. Tennant, B.Eng., A.M.I.Mech.E., M.I.R.T.E., were as follows: Mr. H. Loxton (East Kent) fully confirmed the results given by the author, but engine manufacturers should have given an opinion on the subject. He asked whether Supplement 1 oil, which was costly, was justified.

MR. A. H. GERNAEY (Lancashire United Transport) said that the S.A.E. classification was unsatisfactory and the author was wise to give fuller details of light oils. Test-bed results never showed the same savings, the greatest gain was during warming up, that is why the economy was better on low m He:ages.

MR. G. H. PULFREY (Kingston-uponHull) had had great satisfaction with a proprietary H.D. inhibited oil and engines were achieving mileages up to 225,000 with infinitesimal wear and lower consumption than with straight oil. The S.A.E. 5W and lOW oils had not given such good results and engine condition with them was not so good. MR. D. G. STOKES (Leyland Motors) pointed out that the test facilities for manufacturers were limited in respect of vehicles, that was why operators' tests with large fleets were so useful.

MR. E. V. DYSON (Warrington) gave figures for wear on two engines run for

60,000 miles on S.A.E. 10W with additives to the 2104B specification. The averages were: Exhaust-valve stems a little over .003 in., inlet under .003 in., average on cylinders .0025 in. On heavy double-deck work there was a saving of 2.7 per cent, of fuel, but an increase in oil consumption of about 12 per rent. The monetary saving was .4:40 per 60,000 miles.

MR. F. LAWRENCE (Shell Mex) claimed that the desire of oil companies

was not only to allow operators to effect economies, but to give maximum vehicle availability. His company had established that the loss on ring weight was less with light oils than with an S.A.E. 30. They looked upon oil as an engine component.

MAJOR F. J. CHAPPLE (Bristol Tramways) wondered whether heavy con

sumption of lubricants did not reduce fuel consumption by burning in the cylinders. He suggested better thermo static control to avoid big changes of temperature during operation. He thought very thin oils were undesirable for the transmission unless the loading was light.

MR. J. E. OSBORNE (Gulf Oil) said that the oil companies were not against

the use of light oils, but conservative on the matter. The consumption with them was much more per mile. There was nothing in the author's paper with which an oil company could disagree.

Saving by Cooling Replying, Mr. Tennant thought that engine makers were a little conservative because many operators did not look after their engines so well as 'did those ia the passenger transport field. They might run them to destruction on light oils and then worry the makers. He believed that fuel economy resulted from the low sump temperature experienced throughout running.

The figures he gave for lubricant did not include sump changes, but about 70 per cent. of oil used for " flushing " was regained. The oil companies proved most helpful, but gave no guarantees. He had found that most engines rantoo cool. Low-viscosity oils had been tried in gearboxes and axles, they were quite successful and did not increase oil leakages, but he thought the rate of wear might be more rapid. He was now trying in trans

missions the equivalent of an S.A.E. 50 engine oil.

Amongst comments made on the paper by Mr. W. G. Copestake, A.M.I.Mech.E., "The Development of Lightweight Buses," were the follow

Atli, W. H. WHITAKER (DadMOrdell) looked upon the single-decker with many standees as a monstrosity, and even the ordinary single-deck bus could not be justified except where conditions forced its use.

Ma. A. E. Wiorrir (James Whitson) suggested reducing chassis weight instead of cutting body strength. It was uneconomic to save £30 a year on fuel and spend more on maintenance. Engineers should concentrate on chassis which would not warp, but give strength with lightness.

MR. W. BRAMHAM (Saunders-Roe) claimed that the use of light alloys was no longer a matter of conjecture. Numbers of light-alloy bodies had been built and were quite satisfactory, whilst there was little difference in price between these and others built in suitable materials. In view of the author's reference to points where corrosion was bad, 4 he asked if the use of light alloys for pillars, etc., would not be justified, even without a weight saving.

Meet All Needs

MR. D. M. SINCLAIR (Midland

"Red ") said that he hoped there would not be a race amongst manufacturers to complete lighter buses without proper regard to operators' requirements. It was important to build buses which would satisfy the operator throughout their life—and equally important to please the operator's customers.

MR. R. W. CROUCH (Daimler) referred

to the value of work done in conjunction with the Aluminium Development Association to improve 'fuel consumption. His company had been trying out a centrifugal clutch allowing a positive drive. They were,also reducing drag in a hydraulic coupling by

lowering the idling speed to 300 r.p.m. MR. C. W. WROTH (Potteries Motor

Traction) said that he was running a light Daimler bus weighing 6 tons 3 cwt. of which the body accounted for 36 cwt. This saved about 1.4 m.p.g. compared with a normal body. He thought that for short journeys seats could be cut to 24 or 25 lb.

MAJOR F. J. CHAPPLE remarked that for thin traffic routes vehicles might be designed to weigh less than anything mentioned, but this would cause trouble in a standard vehicle required to operate anywhere.

The author agreed with most of the points raised, except that five years was not long enough to prove the value of light alloys in a bus. He thought that the ratio of live to dead weight would ultimately be about 55 per cent.