The Coal Question.
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE DOMESTIC coal consumption last 'year, according to the Controller of Coal Mines, was 35,000,000 tons. We are not going too far when we say that the loss of output through the calling up of 50,000 miners, added to the huge new demands for munition works in this -country and. for unavoidable export, equals in all a like figure. A statement has already been made to the effect that a. rationing of coal of a more restrictive character must be expected, and we believe that our prophecy of last issue that there will be a rationing of heat, light and power will unfortunately be fulfilled. At one time it seemed as if gas for traction purposes would be obtainable in large or in fairly large quantities in all areas, except the half-dozen which have been scheduled. but this prospect is not now likely &a be fulfilled, unless an hitherto untested source of labour should offer itself to replace that combed out of the mines. Rigid economy, however, will help to retrieve a difficult situation, and as there has so far been little or no restriction and, certainly, no hardship in the matter of solid fuel for heat, light and power (except in the matter of price and delay in delivery), the probability is that, with the warm summer months before us, considerable economies. can be effected on all hands, leaving sufficient fuel for all essential purposes.
Would that it were practical to coke in situ the coal measures remaining in the mines that cannot be profitably worked, and that the resulting gas issuing from the old pit mouths could be collected, compressed into cyliaders, and distributed for road transport purposes ! Such a scheme would seem, to those who have studied the phenomena of natural gas exudation in Canada and elsewhere, to be less highly impracticable than to the majority might at first glance appear.
The Lorry's Right to the Road.
THAT THE ATTACK of the secretary of the Automobile Association on the commercial vehicle was quite unnecessary and unwarranted was obvious with the first glance at his circular letter in which he attempted to define the attitude of the Association towards the projected United Council of Motor Users, Producers and Distributors. We said as much in our last issue, and our opinion is confirmed by the result of the consideration given to the attack by the Standing Joint Committee of Mechanical Road Transport Associations.
The attack was so unnecessary and so confusing to the whole issue that one is forced to marvel that it should have been made. It was unwarranted because, whilst the motorist's double tax on petrol does not restrict travelling, it is extremely rare to meet a motorist whose actual mileage ever re motely approaches that of the driver of a lorry or omnibus on service of average intensity, year in and year out. ,, The petrol tax on a 3-ton petrol wagon or a 3-ton motorbus will .vary from about £28 to £60 annually, according to routes and mileages—these figures being capable of proof. A motorist, to be called upon to pay the midway figure of £45 in petrol tax, must con sume 1800 gallons of petrol in the twelve months, • which, at 20 miles to the gallon (a fair average figure), gives a yearly mileage total of 36,000 miles, or 700 miles a week. Well, we can claim to have exhibited a fairly high degree, of motoring enthusiasm in our time, and yet rarely indeed has our mileage ever touched such a high weekly figure, and *hen it has, it was only in rare and. isolated weeks.
Is it not, at once,. apparent that the statement by the Automobile Association to the effect that the com mercial vehicle whilst doing the greatest damage to roads does not pay for them is unwarranted? And if we want to discuss ethically the justification of road' wear and tear, the private motor User (under the moral code of war time, which taboos luxury in every shape, manner and form) would be worsted in the argument, for, even if the use of the roads by commercial vehicles in carrying men and women to and from their work and in the transport of food and the products of manufacture should wear out the roads, such wear is inevitable, and its cost a reasonable charge upon the commerce of the country to be borne ultimately by the community. The private motorist travelling upon his own pleasure and convenience cannot claim as much.
So we repeat, the statement of the secretary of the Association is unnecessary and unwarrantable. And we hold that the position of the Association has been weakened by the use of an argument which was not germane to the issue.
A Thousand Pounds for a Gas Invention. FOR THE PURPOSE of encouraging the production of a, practical, convenient and inexpensive method of utilizing coal-gas as.a motor fuel, the Automobile Association offers a, prize, of £1000 on conditions', framed with the idea of enabling motorists to carry aufficient gas in a space not exceeding 19 cubic ft. to provide the equivalent of between two and three gallons of petrol, the weight of the installation not to exceed 140 lb. and the cost to be limited to 220, or an annual hiring charge of £5.
Were we addicted to the bad and eminently precarious habit of prophesying, we would say that the 017 Association's thousand pounds is under cover and well dug in, and quite safe.
Two to three gallons of petrol (an eictraordinary amount of latitude when all the other figures in the conditions are so precise) means from 500 cubic ft. to 750 cubic ft. of gas. It Will be observed that-" the space occupied by the container" is the gross space, so that the capacity of the container filling such a space could not exceed 18 cubic ft. Therefore, if we take the midway figure of 625 cubic ft., we must provide for a pressure of 36 atmospheres, or about 540 lb. to the square inch.
Men experienced in the handling of compressed gases will agree with us that if suitable steel be used for the manufacture of a container, the weight will work out at 1 lb. to i lb. for each foot of compressed gas. We thus get a, weight of 625 lb., at least, for container alone, to which must be added the total weight of the connections, reducing valve, etc. Steel containers, as we know them, would thus seem to be ruled out of court, but it must not be forgotten that hitherto, inventive genius has stopped at the
roduction of anything lighter and equally safe. The Murphy Safe cylinder is nearer to the proposition, but we doubt whether it could, on present knowledge, be brought within 350 lb. for the capacity required. We know of another system, but here again the weight would be well -outside of the limit. As to the price limit, after, deducting overheadimanagernent charges and a fair profit, the actual cost of material and labour would not have to exceed /14, which gives us the low price of 2s. per lb. It might on a maximum weight of 140 lb. just he possible to do it, but we doubt it.
One of the "conditions" of the offer introduces an element which has nothing to do with the invention of a container. The expense of establishing and working a charging plant concerns the design, prime cost and cost of running a compressor plant, and as such a plant will cost 1250 to 1400, apart from the cost of storage cylinders and the necessary fittings and connections, and the cost of the labour to supervise the charging of the cylinders, we consider that is. per 1000 cubic ft. ira the additional charge on the motorist to be too low to be an encouragement to installation. We would wish that the Automobile Association had waited until the interim report of the Gas Traction Committee had been published, and have drawn inspiration from that. As at present framed, the conditions make the competition a perfectly safe one, for apart from all else the inventor of a system that would win the prize would prefer to be free to conduct the commercial handling of it instead of being bound :rather-tightly to the A.A.
Why Not a Standing Joint Council?
THERE IS, UNDOUBTEDLY, so much that is good in the proposal to establish a United Conn
• I. ciI representative of all motoring interests, that every endeavour must be made to overcome the diffi%cultiee (a different one in each case) which prevent the Commercial Motor Users Association, the AutoCycle Union and the Automobile Association from acceding to the proposal to form part of such a body. The attitude of heavy transport towards the proposal is reasonable, and is based upon the 'fact that, so long ago as in 1912, the heavy vehicle interests were brought:into unity through the medium of a standing • joint committee, which. is all embra,cing, and which adequately represents the collective views and in. terests of all mechanically-propelled vehicles used for . industrial and commercial purposes other than tramcars. For six years there has not been a dissentient in this group, and it is felt that heavy-vehicle trans-Port can thus be adequately represented in the event ‘43f new legislation or restrictive measures, and that the position would only be weakened were it able to be shown that the heavy vehicle and the pleasure car were rowing in the same boat. On behalf of the heavy vehicle a good case can always be made out, c18 and, therefore, independence of action is more useful than linking up with all other motoring interests.
On the other hand, it is admitted that, in quite a large proportion of cases, united action on behalf of representatives of the whole motoring community will be the most potent line of attack or defence, and the question arises whether the compromise of a combination of groups, each separate and distinct, would not be just as effective whilst meeting the objections advanced. It is suggested that, just as the heavyvehicle interests have done the private users should form their own section, and secure unity therein.
A complete United Council might be regarded as a 'combination of four panels, namely, the commercial user, the private motorist, the motor manufacturer and the motor trader. The commercial user, is already organized. Thus we have the material for this panel ready to hand.
Unity between the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association is needed and very desirable, but we do not quite agree with the suggestion that unity is similarly lacking in the ranks of manufac. turers. We have never heard of any antagonism between the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Association of British Motor and Allied Manufacturers; moreover, these bodies, together with the coachbuilders and the motorcycle and,. cycle manufacturers, are all apparently quite willingto collaborate on a United Council, and not only to collaborate among themselves, but also when opportunity arises, to collaborate with the traders as represented by the Motor Trade Association and Agents Section, Ltd. Thus we have the producers' panel of the Counciland also the distributers' panel fully formed, and if the heavy vehicle Joint Committee were to come in, we should have three out of four panels fully formed. The difficulty of completing the fourth panel may be considerable. Meanwhile it must be remembered that there is a considerable overlappineof membership between the bodies which ought to be brought together on the fourth panel, and that, failing the tollaboration of the others, this fourth panel might., for the time being, be formed by the Royal Automobile Club alone. In the interval we should have all the machinery for union, whenever it might prove desirable, between all commercial users' interests and the interests of commercial vehicle manufacturers and traders.
We should, in fact, have a United Council quite ,complete from the commercial motor point of view; and this could be done without any delay at all. It would surely be Worth the while of the mechanical transport group, represented by the Standing Joint Committee, to arrange definitely for suitable collaboration with other groups that are formed and ready to collaborate. Such collaboration would always strengthen the hands of those concerned, in the face of such attacks as the one that has-just been so injudiciously levelled 'by the Automobile Association.
Motor Agents and Electric Vehicles.
IN AN ARTICLE contributed to this issue, the question of whether the motor agent can be got to take an interest in electric vehicles is discussed.
We feel with our contributor that the difficulty of the situation has been in a measure accentuated by the fact that the electric vehicle has too often been put forward in the guise of a direct competitor
against the petrol vehicle. In point of fact, its peculiar merits entitle it to consideration for special classes of work to -which the petrol vehicle is not as a rule well suited. Where the conditions are such that the petrol vehicle is in its right element, we cannot, as yet agree that the electric can surpass it. Even in the United States: where, from the very first, the electric vehicle was given a good chance under good conditions,. the internal-combustion engine grows in popularity as a source of power. We feel, however, that the agent would be well advised to interest himself in what will amount to a new opportunity of extending the scope of his business. If he can sell an electric to someone who would never have bought a petrol vehicle from him, he is that much to the good. At present, however, the prospects of doing business in electrics are all in the future. For the moment the agent can only be asked to serve existing -owners of electric vehicles by providing them with fuel and, perhaps, in other ways. This process of retailing current does not commend itself much to the agent, and we cannot be surprised at his attitude. When he goes into the matter ho finds that, if he sells current -he;must do so at a loss, particularly in view of the fact that his own suppliers are also, as a rule, willing to sell direct to the vehicle owner, and, moreover, to house •and maintain the vehicles.
There is nothing very immediately attractive in the idea of putting in an expensive charging plant to run at a loss, on the chance of getting, later on, some orders for electric vehicles from people who would otherwise have bought petrol vans. To stimulate his interest, the agent must be shown that what 'he is trying to develop is really new business, and that it is worth while to invest some -capital in order to do so. Cannot the inducements offered to the agent be in some way improved? We can see why the sulsoliers of electric current want to have powers to house and maintain vehicles. They feel that this is pioneering work, which they must perform until the agent is ready and willing to take it over. They do not really want to continue it as a' permanency,. but the motor agent is not quite so sure on this point.
Why should not those who are interested in supplying electric vehicles, batteries and current give the agent some definite indication of their desire to hand ever the -supply of current and the work of maintenance and housing to him at the earliest possible moment? It is not easy to suggest how this could be done unless we take a parallel from the system of the Research Department.
This would mean setting up a fund out of ,which the motor agent, willing to install an expensive plant, would be able to draw some support. If, for instance, for every 210 which the, agent himself invested in plant the fund provided another £10 or £5, the agent would feel that other people were. interested with him in making his efforts remunerative, and_ have some confidence in the future. OtherWise, he is inclined to feel that he is being asked to 'bear the brunt in a campaign, the successful results of which would probably benefit him, but would certainly not benefit him exclusively. The only other suggestion we can offer at the moment is that the electric vehicle and battery makers and the supply companies should prepare a special statement to be circulated among.motor agents.. The whole idea of this statement would be to show clearly' the various directions from which the agent, taking up the electric vehicle, may fairly expect new and profitable business. There should be a free admission also of those directions in which he is' likely to make a loss, and a -strong point should be made of the fact that the electric and the petrol vehicle, though they go into competition at times, are not primarily competitors, but are rather in the nature of allies in the common cause of mechanical teaction.