OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 29
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 coJnmercial motors. Letters should be on, one side of the paper only and typewritten by preference. The right of abbreviation is reserved, and no responsibility for views expressed is accepted.
Chain Drive or Live Axle r The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,866] Sir,:--For a number of years now, British commercial vehicle manufacturers have been gradually changing over from the chain-driven machine to the more fashionable live axle type, and I notice with some considerable interest, hot unmixed with anxiety, in your issue of 23rd. August, that the world famous armaments firm Krupps of Essen, have recently placed a •chainedriven 4-ton chassis on the market.
Kruppe are one of the biggest engineering concerns in the world. A considerable portion of their business before the war was the supplying of chassis parts to motor manufacturers, and. they have now behind them a vast accumulation of data on the Motor vehicle in use in peace and war. In launching a vehicle on the market bearing their name, they must have very carefully considered the final drive question, and their adoption of the chain-driven type suggests to me that our commercial vehicle engineers have been mistaken. in following the pleasure car practice. I cannot help feeling that the latter have been stampeded into this change by the dictates of fashion rather than by conviction. In fact, I cannot think in any case it was conviction that made them change or adopt the live-axle for commercial work, as, in my humble opinion, the chain is the superior drive. I trust you will see your way to.publieh this letter, as in these days of intensified competition, it is ina portant that the British vehicle should embody the best .practice.—Yours faithfully, A. A. BRYCE BUCHANAN. London, W.
Cyclists and Cycle Lighting.
The Editor; THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1,867] Sir,—As one of your readers financially interested in road transport, I should-be much obliged if you could spare me a little space in an early issue to ventilate an apparently unrealized aspect of the question referred to under the heading " Cyclists Again a Source of Danger" in The Commercial Motor of September 6th, 1921.
Whatever one's opinion may be with regard to the desirability of the legally compulsory rear-light for cycles, it cannot be disputed that on country roads, where no footpath is provided, the pedestrian must use the roadway proper, and as it is obviously impracticable to enforce rear-lights for pedestrians, it is the duty of our drivers to maintain no higher speed than that which will enable them to detect pedestrians in time to avoid them in circumstances of darkness or road sinuosity.
• A cyclist is at least as easily visible as a pedestrian, and it appears foolish to. antagonize a numerous class of road-users. (cyclists are probably the most numerous class of Toad-user) by endeavouring to enforce a regulation which they apparently dislike.
It would indeed be regrettable if paragraphs in the official organ of the commercial vehicle owner were to encourage the idea amongst drivers that collisions with cyclists were inevitable, and I earnestly request that you will use every endeavour to emphasize the fact that a driver not only lays himself open to a charge of manslaughter, but may involve his employer in very heavy liabilities for damages, by assuming that no red light in front necessarily means "all dear."
The commercial vehicle is already subject to various petty restrictions, and it would be highly undesir able that cyclists, as a body, constituting a by no means, despicable political factor, should be led to assume an attitude of_ enmity towards us by a mistaken policy on the part of our representative bodies and Press.—Yours faithfully, It. E. DEWBERRY. London, N.7.
The Trackless Trolley System.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
(1,868] Sir,—In your desire to give due attention to all transport schemes, I fear you overlook the fact that serious results may follow the approval of a scheme that, although a commercial success, is really detrimental to the best interests of road transport. I refer to the report on the "trackless trolley" in your issue ef September 6th. The "trackless trolley" is an ill-advised attempt to bolster up the decaying tramway. As an electrical engineer of nearly 50 years' experience, 27 with tramways at home and abroad, I look on it with shame andregret.
The future of road transport is controlled primarily
by our roads. These must be so constructed and equipped as to place electric power within the reach of every vehicle, and provide a uniform system of construction throughout the country, graded to suit the locality. That horsed traffic must go is now generally accepted by experts. It is a question of time. The tramway is too inflexible to admit of general use on account of the grooved rail, and must, therefore, give place to the simpler system of flat metal tracks.
The trackless trolley is even more• inflexible than the tramway, owing to the double overhead conductor which cannot provide for turnings and crossings. Therefore, why eulogize and suggest its extension instead of giving a note of warning that it is but a temporary expedient?
Further the vehicles being compelled by the over
head conductor to keep in line, the wheel tracks will, in a very short time, be very prominently marked. Other vehicles crossing. them will determine the fracture of the surface with the inevitable and too well known result. As a road, engineer first and transport man afterwards, I was the first to point out that roads must come• first. It would be absurd to build a house without a, feundation, a railway or a tramway without a bed for the rails. The trackless trolley is a national disgrace. Equally so, the patchwork system of our road authorities all over the country.
The fundamental fact regarding our roads is that, with horses, every part of the surface had to be strong enough to resist the blows of the feet. With motor traffic, this is not the case, the whole of the wear and tear being in lines for which metal tracks are imperative. The whole of our commercial traffic would, for economy, have metal tyres and be confined to these tracks., which would be uniform throughout the country. The metal tyres would provide the necessary earth connection, and electricity would be collected from an overhead conductor, rigid and strong, not a copper clothes line. Of -course, those who were foolish enough to retain the crudeand expensive internal combustion motor might do so. Every private vehicle would be perfectly free tdetake any route, and would have pneumatic tyres that would not damage the uniform road surface. The simplicity of the electric motor and the facility with which the battery could be charged while running, would, however, soon establish its popu larity.—Yours faithfully, ERNEST G. PINK. London, S.E.