A TROLLEYBUS REVIVAL.
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Merits Claimed for the Trolleybus System.
I. N THE issue of The Commercial Motor for Sep -ternber 2nd the questionis asked : "Does the trolleybus offer advantages over the self-contained vehicle ?." The eontributor of that article, answering . the question' in the negative, appears -to have* been influenced; in the first'place, by .alleged drastic criticisra by the Committee on London Traffic and, • secondly, by some recently published' figures from Rotherham. Each of -these cases, if regarded superficially, Fieems to support• the conclusion 'arrived at by the"aiither 'of the article but, on closer investiga. tione they Will he found to have the opposite effect. The Committee on London Traffic were not empowered ,t6 examine and report upon alternative methods of transport. T:hey took no evidence and expressed no' opinion on the relative methodsof rival systems. Your contributor is therefore under a misapprehension in 'stating that 1` the Committee were very definite in their condemnation of the trolleybus. ' They neither condemned it nor approved it. They neither. expressed -nor were qualified to. express an opinion of any kind on a matter which lay outside their terms of referenceand upon which no evidence
had been offered. •
The references in the article of September 2nd to "condemnation" and " drastic criticism" evidently relate to certain remarks addressed by the chairman and by another member of the Committee to a witness, who had introduced a comment on the trolleybus. A member of the Committee, whom the contributor to The Commercial Motor would probably regard as a " prejudiced tramway enthusiasts" then volunteered the statement that trolleybuses had been a failure at "Leeds, Halifax, etc.," and the chairman followed with the inexactitude that they had been tried and abandoned also by the L.C.C. These remarks can scarcely be described as "condemnation" or "drastic criticism," for they were not expressions of opinion, but merely misstatements of fact. They could easily have been refuted, -but the Committee, being bound by their terms of reference, declined to hear-rebutting evidence. So much for the alleged condemnation of trolley buses by the Committee on London Traffic. Let us now examine the Rotherham figureeewhich, to quote the article in. question, -" show trolleybus costs there to be 14.653d. per car mile, chiefly due to the excesSiVe item of-4.297d. for repairs." On the face of it 14.653d per car mile is a very high running cost, but before drawing conclusions therefrom in 'favour of selfecontained, self-propelled vehicles, it would be desirable to ascertain whit their working costs are under the same. conditions. . Fortunate.ly for our. immediate purpose, Rotherham Corporation-are running motorbuses aewell'as-trelleybuses; and, as 'the 'Costs
of 'both were published simultaneously, it is curieus. that the author of the article has quoted only one 'of them. Arranged in parallel columns, the records Will repay some further study :— — -.
It will be observed that the working costs of trolleybuses at Rotherham"-'high though they undoubtedly are, are yet lower than those for motorbuses. The trolleybus figures also include an item of .375d. per car mile for road maintenance, -while there is no corresponding burden on the motorbus beyond a relatively insignificant petrol tax.
The difference in favour of the trolleybus is actually much greater than appears from the figures. The motorbuses are of the most modern design, and most of thein'have been in service for less than five years. The trolleybuees are amongst the first ever manufactured and have been running for seven years. How greatly age affects the cost of maintenance was proved in evidence given recently by the manager of the L.G.O. Co., who stated that the life of a motorbus is five years and that it dose not pay to keep them in service for a longer period. The real significance of the Rotherham figures is this : Although on the streets of London the life of a modern motorbus is limited to five years, yet on a rough country road an early, and virtually obsolete type of tailless car has been running successfully for seven years, and is still operating. at a lower cost thin much newer motorbuses -tieing the same route. The view of the contributor to The Cemmercia Motor that " no speCial, advantage can be claimed for the trolleybus over and above the recorded performances of self-contained, self-propelled machines" rests on a somewhat unsubstantial foundation if it is built on an opinion which was not expressed by the Committee on London Traffic and on figures from Rotherham which prove the exact opposite of his con 'elusions. AN ENGINEER.