Correspondence.
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Simms-Bosch Magnetos.
The Editor, " THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—It has come to our notice that our genuine SimmsBosch magnetos have repeatedly been confused with another make. It would no doubt interest your technical staff, as well as the readers of your paper, to know that we are the makers of the only genuine Simms-Bosch magnetos, which have been on the market for some TO or 12 years; our machines always bear one of our two trade marks. It has also come to our knowledge that our machines are being bought by some would-be competitors, who file off our trade marks and try to pass the machine off as their own make.
Whilst we undertake to guarantee our own machines in every respect as of the finest workmanship, we cannot, of course, do so if they have been in any way tampered with.— 'tours faithfully, CIE DES MAGNETOS SIMMS-BOSCH, LTD.
A. HIRST, Manager.
23, Store Street, W.C., loth June, 1907.
About Motorcabs.
The Editor," THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—We were interested to see the letter of Mr. Arthur E. A. M. Turner in your last issue in reply to our own on the above subject, because he so largely supports the view we put forward, that is to say, his statements do. We do not think the illustration he uses is altogether a happy one, for the firm he quoted had evidently not by any means completed its organisation, and the construction of heavy lorry chassis is a totally different thing to the construction of cab chassis. When we recall the fact that the Milne DaimlerCompany, which have been longer in the motor omnibus business than any other firm in the trade, advertise with pride a total output of boo chassis, with all their organisation and facilities for production, it is not by any means strange that a new firm, with organisation incomplete and comparatively small facilities for production, should be only able to promise half a dozen chassis in "a few months." iHow few, Mr. Turner does net state. What he does state, however, with regard to the 500 Renault cabs, very fully 'emphasises the point we made, viz., that, dealt with on an equivalent basis, there is more than one British firm able and willing to cater for the cab trade, Mr. Turner says that these cabs were ordered at the end of May, tqa6, and the
first was licensed for service during the last week in November; that is to say, the great Renault -firm accepted the order and made its first delivery in about five months from date of order, and we conclude that the last cabs of this contract are still in course of construction. We conclude further that it will probably be close on the 15 months we mentioned before these last cabs are on service.
Well, Sir, what we have to say is, that British firms can do this just as well as foreign firms, but our experience has been that nine out of ten enquirers for motorcabs expect deliveries in five or six weeks, and deliveries in quantity, and because they cannot get them almost "off the shelf " so to speak, they talk about British manufacturers being behind the times, and of the foreigner's " enterprise " and ability to do busine.ss. It may be asked why British firms do ndt cater for the cab trade by stockingvehicles ; our reply to this is to repeat what we said in our former letter, that half the enquirers for cabs don't know what they want, and all want something different. The motorcab is not a vehicle which can be readily sold to the general public, and it is a vehicle which requires to. be built to suit the particular needs of the particular work it is required to do, and of the particular district in which it is required to be run, so that cab company promoters and cab companies must be prepared to wait the very necessary time for the preparation of models to suit their particular needs. Most of those that we have come across think a new model cab can be got out in a few weeks.
Repeating once more the crux of the question, we again sav, if those desirous of entering the cab running business will do as they are evidently prepared to do with the foreigner, that is to say, give a reasonable time for delivery, not only our own firm, but most British firms with any organisation at all, will be ready, willing, and able to undertake their work and to give them a better article and better attention than rumour tells us cab companies in the p-st ly.ive succeeded in gettingfrom foreign firms.—Yours faithfull',
STURMEY MOTORS, LTD. Lotis Works, Coventry, 7th June, 1907.
The Samsonian Road Wheel.
The Editor, "THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—We have read with interest the impartial description, not to say criticism, of our Samsonian patent road wheels, in your issue of the 6th instant. There is part, however (paragraph 3), which would, on the face of it, appear with the explanation to be somewhat adverse to the advantages claimed for this wheel. Our usual method in providing for the chain drive is to cast lugs on the spokes of the wheel in a convenient position to which is attached the chain sprocket.
The second illustration is that of a wheel we made specially for a customer who particularly desired to attach his chain sprockets to the flange containing the hub of the wheel, and bolted in position by means of the 12 bolts shown in the illustration.
We do not recommend this latter design of drive, and your criticism is quite warranted. To obtain the full advantages claimed by us in the use of our patent, the chain sprockets should be bolted to, and the drive taken through, the spokes of the wheel, so leaving a free action upon the resilient centre as shown in the first illustration of your article where you will notice that the hub of the wheel is held in position by bolts only.
It is gratifying to us to be able to say that all the wheels we have supplied are giving every satisfaction, with the result that we are receiving repeat orders from our customers. We have pleasure in enclosing drawing showing the method we usually adopt for the chain drive, viz., attaching the sprockets to the lug cast upon the spokes of the wheels.—Yours faithfully,
THE ATLAS ENGINEERING CO. Levenshulme, Manchester.
r7th June, 1907.
rhe Rights of Carriers in Towns.
The Editor, "THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR."
Sir :—I have been greatly interested in reading the article, n your issues of the 23rd and 3oth May, entitled the "Rights }f Carriers in Towns "; I quite concur with all the writer las said, and if I am not trespassing too much on your rah/able space, I would like to mention a few facts con:erning railway rates, rebates and classification anomalies, which no doubt may be of interest to traders, cartage conractors, and your readers generally. In the first place, I think we should look back to the arly days of railroads, when they were considered by some mproved roads, as compared with highways and canals, which up to that time had carried the traffic, and the ;-eneral impression was that the public would have the use >f the railroads for the conveyance of their own vehicles on )ayment of certain tolls ; I believe there have been cases where certain colliery owners in Lancashire have hauled heir own coal from one town to another with their own Tig-ines. As time went on, the railways increased, and for hese certain Acts of Parliament were passed from time to ime, authorising their construction, and including a scale alculating, at per ton per mile, the maximum charges for onveyance. I do not think it is necessary for me to deal vith each Act separately, but I will take the Railway Rates Ad Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891 and 1892, and, mentioning certain clauses, I may perhaps be able to how how unfairly the railway companies (and one in parcular which has lately come under my notice) are dealing ith the traders who are to a certain extent—I am sorry say—ignorant of their rights.
Let us see what some of the services are which a railway mpany is entitled to charge for. Firstly, there is a maxiurn station terminal, a charge which the company may
make to the trader for the use of the accommodation (exclusive of local drops) provided, and for the duties undertaken by the company at the terminal station. Secondly, there is the maximum terminal service, which is a charge made by the company to the trader for performing the services of loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering merchandise, which charges shall, in respect of each service, be deemed to include all charges for the provision by the company of labour, machinery, plant, sheets, etc. Thirdly, the maximum rates for conveyance. I may say that there are other services in connection with sidings for which a railway company may charge. I may perhaps deal with this at some future time.
Perhaps it would be as well if I gave an example of how a railway company compiles its class rates between two local stations, and will call the stations A and B. ,
The distance from A to B is 120 miles; the traffic is wire netting, classified in the General Railway Classification, Class D
This figure is the maximum allowed by the Act, and no charge has been included for the services of collection and delivery. I may say here that the standard cartage charge for traffic in Class 2 is is. 8d. per ton in provincial towns, so, if a "C and D" rate is required, the amount of 35. 4d. must be added to the rate of 245. 'oda making a "C and D " rate from A to B of 28s. 2d. per ton,
herewith give you the standard cartage scale used by most of the companies in the compilation of collected and delivered rates for classes from / to 5 :—
The reader will thus have a fair idea of how the companies arrive at their rates. Let me now, if I can, show you how unfair the railway companies are to traders and others who cart their own goods to and from the station, and to those who do not employ the companies' teams to do the cat Ling, in the allowance of rebates. One example I may give, is from the evidence of Mr. Beckwith in the case of Pickfords v. L. and N.W.R. Company :—Bicycles between Coventry and London. The rate in operation is 45s. rd., but the company's statutory powers for conveyance and terminal charges cover only 35s. Id., leaving a balance of los. for cartage in Coventry and London (6s. Sd. for London cartage and 35. 4d. for Coventry). Now, supposing the trader in Coventry delivers his own goods to the forwarding station, what does he receive in rebate? 3s. 4d. ?
No is. 6d. only Is it fair? Is it honest? I say a thousand times, No! What right has the railway company to detain the balance of is. rod.? Could any other commercial undertaking be carried on in the same manner for long? Would it not soon go to the wall? Even allowing the company some compensation for the outlay of providing teams, what has it to say in cases where no cartage staff is kept, and yet the rates to these stations are charged at the " C and D" figure, which is made up with the standard cartage charges included. It is perfectly true that from
one-third to one-half of the goods stations have no cartage at all, and when the rates (" C and D ") were compiled, it was never intended to put a cartage stall down.
I will give just one more instance of unfair rebates, although I could go on enumerating them for some time yet, i.e., rebates allowed to traders in Manchester and district. When the company's rate is less than 8s. 4d., the rebate is _rod. per ton ; between 8s. 4d. and 125. 6d., the rebate is is.; and over 125. 6c1.., it is is. 6d. I have several cases before me where rates have been analysed from this district, showing that the usual cartage charges have been added to the statutory powers, viz., is. 4d. to 35. 4d., yet, at each station, the highest rebate allowed is 35. per ton, and the company has a profit (Dare I call it by that name?) ranging from is. to 35. 8d.
Now let us see what treatment a trader receives from the company to whom he applies for analysis of the rate under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1)888, Sub-section 3, Section 33, which reads as follows :- (3) " The Company shall, within one week after application in writing made to the Secretary of any Company by any person interested in the carriage of any merchandise which has been or is intended to be carried over the Railway of such Company, render an account to the person so applying in which the Charge made or claimed by the Company for the carriage of such merchandise shall be divided, and the charge for conveyance over the Railway shall be distinguished from the terminal charges (if any), and from the dock charges (if any), and if any terminal or dock charge is included in such account, the nature and detail of the terminal expenses or clock charges in respect of which it is made shall be specified."
After waiting some time, the company will write and ask him to give the dates on which the traffic passed to the station, for which he requires the 'analysis (a question that has nothing whatever to do with his application under the above Act). I have known cases where the trader has refusedand rightly too-to give this information, but we will say that he gives the company the information it asks for. What next does the company do? I give a case which occurred within this last month or two.
The trader in question deals in traffic which is classified in the General Railway Classification, Class 2. He carts his own traffic to the station, and performs all the service terminals; we will call the stations between which the traffic passes, N and 0, the distance being noted in the rate book at the station as 72 miles and the second-class rate 225.. 6d. " C and D." He made formal application for the analysis of this rate, and, after waiting from twelve to fourteen days, the following disintegration was sent :
He was not satisfied with the conveyance charge of 16s. 2d. and asked how this figure was arrived at, as he made it by their statutory powers to be only 135. 5d. a difference of 2s. gd. He was personally informed by the railway company's representative, who waited upon him, that conveyance charge was I6s. 2d., but the trader pressed him to show him how the charge was worked out, and he went away, promising to send on his working-out. This duly arrived, and in the modified analysis the conveyance charge was worked out to 18s. 5.50d. On again being asked how this figure was arrived at, he was informed that the merchandise was Class 4 traffic (although it is legibly classified in Class 2) and he could give no further analysis. It would be as well if we just looked carefully through the above analysis to see how the company has evaded giving the trader the true disintegration it is required to do by law. Firstly, the time allowed by the Act was exceeded by the company, not a great matter in itself, I admit, but it shows the trader that the railway companies do not intend to abide by the Acts; they must be made to do so by the traders who have it in their power to make them. Secondly, the conveyance charge was above its maximum power. Why? Because the larger the amount the company showed for conveyance, the less would have to be shown by them
for the cartage. Thirdly, the rate charged, Viz., 225. 6d and the total of the analysis do not agree with the samE and I append an analysis which would be nearer the trot than the one given by the company : The disintegrations given by the railway companies al
a fake from beginning to end, and are made to deceive tlBritish trader. With regard to the company's assertic that the traffic should have been charged at the fourth-cla: figure, as I have previously said, the traffic is distinct classified in the second class, and, should the goods hai been unclassified, the highest rate which the company eau have charged could only have been the third-class rate, unl the Board of Trade had decided and published the classific.
tion of such merchandise in the " London Gazette."
Allow me to give you one other instance of a trader appl ing for a disintegration of rates charged by the compan The stations between which the traffic passed I will call . and D; at the time the traffic passed, there were no rat, in operation, and, after some little time, the rates we put in the rate book, and the account duly rendered to ti trader (who also does his own carting and is allowed by ti company th.e handsome sum of is. per ton rebate on all ai sundry goods he carts). The rates were quoted as " n carted at forwarding station " and, as they seemed to I very high, and being somewhat suspicious, he asked tl company to analyse same. After waiting for some consid€ able time, he was informed by the railway company that mistake had been made, and a modified analysis would sent ; this arrived, and showed the merchandise in whit the trader was interested, as a " special rate," in whil was included Is. per ton for cartage; at the same time f class rates noted in the rate book, and which were .charg to the sender, were reduced, not. to the figure of the OM pony's analysis, but to a figure with the full standard cat age charge included and a higher figure than the compan). analysis. The trader, not being satisfied, asked for a ft. ther analysis between the same stations, for similarly " ck sified " goods as those in his first application, and the ra way company, rather than disintegrate the class rate not for the goods, again put the traffic in the rate book as "special rate," and intimated that the analysis already give would apply to his later application. Of course, one coo easily see that the whole business was nothing more or It than a " fake " on the company's part, to evade giving t trader the true information he is entitled to by the Act, a: it must be stopped.
Why should a railway company ride rough-shod over the Acts as if they did not exist? An example must be made them, and their powers must be most certainly curtailed future legislation. We cannot allow the railways to s• we include 35. 4d. per ton above our statutory powers f cartage, but if you do your own cartage we shall only alk is. 6d. per ton for whatever class of traffic you may ca The railway companies intend to oust the private carter they possibly can (at the expense of the trader) and so fot a monopoly of the carting as well as of the carrying, a the companies must be put back in their proper place. traders will only insist on their rights, and encourage prilq carters to cart their goods to and from the stations, I not think the railway companies will be able to keep teat of horses to show against Mr. Armour, etc.
In reading through the judgments on the Pickforcls ca one cannot but admire the masterful way in which James Wodehouse dealt with the case, both from a logi and commercial standpoint, and I think that any unbias person who reads the whole of the three judgments agree that Sir James Wodehouse's was the correct one. intended dealing with some railway anomalies, but I afraid I have already trespassed too far on your good nat and valuable space. In conclusion, may I ask your read not to let this most important matter drop; if they do, t will in time be bound hand and foot by the companies. My advice to the trading public is, " Wake up and 1 to your rights."-Yours faithfully,