LETTERS to the editor
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Views expressed in letters published are not necessarily those of the editor
Beating the pirates COMMERCIAL MOTOR'S article ("Lowdown on the Tipper Pirates," February 3) on illegal operation, the result of a meeting between CM's James Millen and myself, and an article contributed by the SMBA on the same subject, caused quite a reaction among certain sections of the road haulage industry. Although the Road Haulage Association Metropolitan and South Eastern area had been working on this problem for some time, I feel that the co-operation of your journal has helped us in our fight against the illegal operator.
The Road Haulage Association Metropolitan area, through the chairman, Mr. Peter May, the secretary, Mr. George Harris, and myself, with the backing of the full area committee, had meetings with the Licensing Authority, the GLC and the Police, which I am pleased to report have proved successful, to say the least, in containing the pirates. This position, which is the result of a lot of hard work, must not be relaxed for one moment if we are to solve the problem which affects the livelihood of all hauliers.
The interesting conclusions which can be drawn from all these efforts are that authorities, especially the Licensing Authority, who have increased their enforcement staff, have put in a tremendous effort to contain the illegal operator. They could accomplish better results if the co-operation of the haulage industry was more active.
It is apparent that with complete co-operation and mutual trust between the authorities, the RHA and a strong commercial Press, we can surmount a lot of troubles that affect our industry as a whole. The results of this getting together could be a steppingstone to greater effort on all our parts to have all factions of our industry pulling together to our mutual benefit.
The Aand B-licensed operators, the RHA, working together with the authorities and with the backing of a strong commercial Press can achieve beneficial results. Lip service is not enough— individual effort must be made by the C-licensed operators to persuade all C transport concerns to join and support the TRTA. Equally, all A and B licence holders already members of the RHA must persuade other hauliers to join us in the interest of the haulage industry, also subscribing and contributing to the commercial Press which supports us.
During the months ahead, with the many problems which face our industry, if we are united and strong we can face any threat to our livelihoods.
L. R. HOUSE, L. R. House Transport, 358 Seven Sisters Road, London N4.
It's easier by rail WE HAVE READ with considerable surprise the article by Mr. P. A. C. Brockington, AMIMechE, "Rail to the Help of Road?"
This article suggests that a manufacturer with 100 years' experience in producing braking equipment for rail applications would necessarily be able to contribute, to a major extent, to braking techniques for road vehicles.
It also infers, by making the statement, that the makers of rail equipment are given appropriate latitude to produce systems that comply with the best interests of the user, that the manufacturers of braking equipment for road vehicles are not permitted to do this and, by inference, that short cuts are taken which prejudice the safety of the system. We cannot too strongly refute this implication.
First, I should like to say that, considered objectively, it is clear that the problems of braking rail vehicles are considerably simpler than those of braking road vehicles; the following are some of the more obvious reasons:— 1. The maximum possible deceleration that can be used on a rail vehicle is 15 per cent but it is normal not to try to achieve a maximum deceleration of more than 12 per cent—this is because the co-efficient of friction of the steel railway wheels with the steel rail is so low that a greater adhesion cannot be obtained without skidding the wheels. If the wheels are skidding, flats are produced and, on passenger services, this results in unacceptable noise levels.
2. Railway vehicles are very much more standardized than road vehicles and, in many cases, the design in braking equipment has not changed for as much as 50 years.
3. Normally the driver of a train knows exactly when he has to put his brakes on; he has a signal to tell him and he always knows the route on which he is going to drive—he has no alternative.
4. Normally there is no-one on the line close to him going in the same direction and certainly no-one on the same line going in the opposite direction so that he has no unexpected requirement for brake application; speed of application of the brakes becomes relatively unimportant.
5. A moment's consideration will show that the conditions for road operation of a vehicle are entirely different, setting quite different and much more difficult problems.
In addition tractors have to be able to draw a variety of different trailers and it is more difficult to marry the braking between these various combinations than it is with a relatively standardized equipment such as is used by the railways.
6. Weight has never been the important consideration in railways that it is on road vehicles. It is the aim of commercial vehicle designers to produce the lightest vehicle which will give the necessary service at the right price and this again sets much more difficult problems than have to be met with in the design of railway braking equipment.
I would suggest that far from the motor industry being able to benefit from the railway braking manufacturers, the railway would benefit from the adoption of some of the techniques of the manufacturers of road braking equipment.
D. H. BALLARD, Technical Director, Clayton Dewandre Co. Ltd., Titanic Works, Lincoln.
That RTITB bulletin
I WOULD like to refer to your article of June 30 on the resignation of Mr. John Birch from the Road Transport Industry Training Board, Mr. Birch is quoted as saying that Information Bulletin No. 3 received on June 21, two days after the meeting, referred to the 1.6 per cent levy and that "It must have been printed before the levy was officially approved by the Road Transport Industry Training Board. If this is democracy, I do not like it".
Your readers may like to know exactly what happened. I was instructed by the chairman that all interested parties should be advised on the Board's decision at the earliest possible opportunity.
I was present at the Board meeting and as soon as a decision was reached, I left the room and went straight down to the printing department to arrange for the printing of the bulletin and Press release—nothing was printed before the meeting.
Public Relations Officer, JEREMY G. BARRETT Road Transport Industry Training Board, Capitol House, Empire Way, Wembley.