OPINIONS FROM OTHERS.
Page 71
Page 72
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 commercial motors. fetters 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.
THE SUSPENSION OF SIX-WHEELED VEHICLES.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2582] Sir,—I was interested in the description of Col. Niblett's patent, published in the issue of The Commercial Motor for March 1st. So far as lean see, the patent does not eliminate the most serious defects found in longitudinally sprung vehicles when passing over uneven surfaces at speed, which are twisting of the chassis, springs and axle, limitation of wheel movement due to the springs being attached to a transverse axle with a radial movement, whilst the springs attached to the chassis have movement in a vertical plane.
Torque rods, shackles and other gadgets fitted in order to bolster up this bad system give trouble and should be eliminated, as they are not necessary in a scientifically designed suspension. John I. Thornycroft and Co., Ltd., last year claimed in the technical Press that their six-wheeled vehicle chassis, designed and built to War Office requirements, was rigid. When I pointed out to them, in a letter in reply, that it could not be so, according to the published design, they withdrew their claim.
After five years' motoring experience on Continental roads with high-powered cars, I have come to the conclusion, from the number of chassis, springs, frOnt axles, shackles, etc., I have broken, that longitudinally sprung cars are wrong in they and practice. The ideal suspension, which enables a vehicle successfully to nego tiate uneven surfaces at speed without mechanical troubles due to twisting strains, is the transverse com posite type, especially without axles, which give independent unlimited wheel movement, an absolutely rigid chassis, combined with rigid braking and driving effect without torque rods or links, eliminating bounce and rolling on curves.
When I was in London last July I submitted to the War Office a transversely sprung model vehicle, fitted with front-wheel drive and without axles, embodying all the above good features. I offered to design a fullsized vehicle for a consideration, to be built at Alder shot, but my offer was turned down without a technical reason. The model was sent to Aldershot and the War Office claimed the right to keep it. This is very annoy ing, because it cost me much time and money to construct, so before I can proceed with the matter I shall have to build another demonstration model.
As Col. Niblett is an expert on vehicle suspensions, perhaps he will now tell us in The Commercial Motor
what defects he saw in my design, as Mr. H. Rowell, director of research on suspensions, etc., to the Motor and Allied -Manufacturers, Mr. Lanchester and other suspension experts, in a discussion in the technical Press, could not refute my arguments in favour of the transverse type. At the same time, they put up no defence for the longitudinal type, except that it is more generally used, which was no argument, as designers usually "follow the man from Cook's."
I do not think Col. Niblett would be giving away War Office secrets by stating in which way his patented system of suspension is superior to the transverse type.
I am conversant with a number of experimental vehicles built at Aldershot, fitted with longitudinal springs, and from what I know of the suspension problem they represent much time, money and material wasted. They would make a very bad show over rough ground in competition with some Continental motor gun-carriages I have seen running at over 30 miles per hour fitted with transverse springs.
Further, a transversely sprung car without axles does not damage the roads with hammer blows like a longitudinally sprung car with axles ; therefore, designers of this type of vehicle should be encouraged in Britain. Instead, retrograde proposals have been put forward by the Ministry of Transport in a blue book on suspensions for passenger-carrying vehicles, which, if ratified by Parliament, will banish all transversely sprung passenger-carrying cars from the roads.
Not only are the official experts in the War Office and Ministry of Transport firmly entrenched against advanced practical ideas, but the technical depart. ments of the Navy and Air Ministry are in the same position. Last July I interviewed the engineer-in-chief at the Admiralty and submitted to him a new and simple system of hydraulic steering gear for ships and submarines. He said it was of no interest to them. Last week I gave a demonstration in Paris with the model to a famous Scotch engineer ; he is interested and is putting it before his Scotch engineering friends with a view to its manufacture. The article on "The Way the World is Going," published in the Sunday Express of March 6th by H. G. Wells (one of the greatest thinkers of the age), should be read by all Britishers who have the welfare of their country at heart. It accurately describes British officialdom, now at its best, pouring cold water on all advanced thought.
—.Yours faithfully, WILLIAM COCHRANE. Courbevoie, Seine.
Increased Taxation on Commercial Vehicles.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[25831 Sir,—As factors of commercial vehicles and spares we are daily in contact with a large number of commercial vehicle owners and users, and in this way we gain an intimate knowledge of the financial position of heavy haulage contractors. Ever since the new scale of taxation has been made public, the whole of our customers—large and small—have very keenly resented the increase in the fees, but, unfortunately, they have not, up to now, made any concerted and determined effort to get the new scale revised to a basis more fair and reasonable. Now, however, under the auspices of the Commercial Motor Users Association, 50, Pall Mall, London, S.W.1, all haulage contractors are being invited to put their grievance before their local members of Parliament, with a view to obtaining some redress.
From our own wide experience, we say at once, most emphatically, that the haulage contractor's objection to the increased taxation is more than justified, and the new scales in operation are nothing but rank injustice, inasmuch as they are slowly but surely crippling enterprise and advance, for the small man as well as the owners ef large fleets, Indeed, we know of many of the small men who have already found it impossible to carry on and have either sold out and joined the ranks of the unemployed or, in the more fortunate cases, found themselves situations at considerable financial loss, as they, of course, had to take what wages they could get. These are the same men who, during the last coal strike, which so nearly developed into a national disaster, saved the situation and the country, with the very transport which is now being so heavily penalized.
Even those contractors who are carrying on are only doing so "from hand to mouth," and it is a very moot point how many of them will be still in existence in a month or two from now.
All those interested in motor haulage work of any description should act, and act quickly, as we believe that still further increases are contemplated in the futufe, instead of considerable reduction, as should be the case. Any doubt as to the best way to act will be speedily settled by application to the Commercial Motor Users Association.—Yours faithfully,
T. ATKINS, Secretary,
West Bromwich. Auto Stocks, Ltd.
Taxicabs in London and Paris.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2584] Sir,—I notice a letter from Mr. H. Cochrane in the issue of The Commercial Motor for March 1st on the subject of Paris taxicabs. All the points to which he refers were mentioned in a previous article on the same subject which appeared in The Commercial Motor for January 13th, 1925 (pages 662 to 664). My intention in the last article published was simply to bring the matter up to date. I quite agree with Mr. Cochrane that Paris cabs can do 40 m.p.h., fully loaded. They sometimes even exceed this when the driver also is " fully loaded." I wish they would not ! • Mr. Cochrane says that the bodywork on a London cab reminds him of motor coachwork of 15 years ago. There is a reason for this. It is the coachwork of 15 years ago in most cases. I am afraid, however, that overloading still applies to British coachwork in general. In finish it is often the best in the world, but it is still too heavy. Thousands of light French chassis imported into England have their performance spoilt by overloading.—Yours faithfully,
Paris. You 11 PARIS CORRESPONDENT.
Bus Services to the Outskirts of Towns.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2585] Sir,—Can any legitimate reason be advanced why bus or tram transport has any more right to be a monopoly of corporations or governments than, say, newspapers or anything else?
I am quite well aware that the Labour Party want all road passenger transport owned by public bodies, being one step nearer nationalization, which is what they are aiming at for all transport—road, rail and probably eventually (vide Australia) ships.
No sane person will for a minute believe that the present splendid and ample bus services would be existent if it had not been for private enterprise, and, furthermore, the fares charged would undoubtedly be higher than at present if competition were done away with and a monopoly granted for all road passenger conveyances to be owned by one authority.
Where will the manufacturers eventually find themselves if all bus services get into the sole hands of a few of the big cities, say, Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow, etc.? These corporations will, without a doubt, build their own vehicles the same as they now do the trams, and at least 40 per cent. of the present-day sales of' the heavy vehicle makers will be gone. The L.G.O.C. and A.E.C. case proves how obvious this is, that one would have thought the whole manufacturing side would strenuously oppose any increase of monopoly running powers being granted to corporations. But I am afraid our English manufacturers are so absorbed with " making hay while the sun shines" that they have not the forethought to think of the future or see the "writing on the wall." I warn them it is no use "shutting the stable door when the horse is gone." Their interests and the public's real interest are to keep private road passenger transport alive and free of all restrictive, protective (and, at present, illegal) measures enforced by municipalities for the benefit of their own trading enterprises.
The point in the last two paragraphs of the editorial on "Bus Services to the Outskirts of Towns," in the issue of March 8th, re long-distance passengers not being able to get seats, I think applies generally on many morning and evening trains, and, as you say, in London, where you know private enterprise has supplied the largest and best road transport service in the world. In the case you refer to, surely it is quite obvious that the bus company you have In mind (vide the last paragraph) could easily run extra buses for short-journey passengers at these rush hours. I ask is it that they do not because (1) the licensing authorities will not give them permission—the cause in 95 per cent, of cases or (2) because they find that solely one-way (short-journey) passengers are not enough to make vehicles so used pay their way? It can only be one or the other of these reasons, unless one says that the bus company operating into that town is inefficient and not wanting business and does not want to bother with taking the business which you say is going a-begging. I should be glad to know the district, as in all places I know private bus companies are running, if anything, too many buses for the numbers required to be carried.
With regard to the assertion that "because if a concern sets out to serve the public, the latter orders its affairs accordingly and is disturbed and inconvenienced when it finds that the service is largely impracticable because supply and demand are not co-ordinated," are the travelling public never inconvenienced by the methods (and numbers of coaches) of running trains or trains? Is there no waiting for the next train at rush hours in Leeds or Hull; is there no overcrowding in trains at that time? I have read quite a lot about it in the papers lately re trains running out of London.— Yours faithfully, E. R. THACKWELL. Hull.
Does London Need Smaller Buses ?
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2586] Sir,—In reply to the letter from Mr. Henry Watson, of Wallington, Surrey, in The Commercial Motor dated March 8th, I beg to inform you that Mr. Watson's comments on the smaller buses have given me the opportunity of correcting a slight printer's error in a paragraph in my original article dealing with the subject. I refer to the line where it refers to "Single-deck omnibuses seating 26 passengers." This should have read, " Seating 36 passengers." The reason for making it read " 36" was that I am endeavouring to get a chassis approved by the authorities at Scotland Yard for this purpose.
I think Mr. Taylor will agree that a four-wheel brake pneumatic-tyred omnibus, with a speed of 18 in.p.h., is' a much more desirable vehicle than the big, cumbersome double-deck solid-tyred vehicle running at 9 m.p.h. According to Mr. Watson's own argument the former gives more efficiency.
Furthermore, it seems to me that Mr. Watson has missed the most important point against the largertype vehicles; that is, the enormous amount of congestion when stationary. Surely he must be aware of the fact that the main object of one-way traffic is to keep all vehicles moving and thereby to alleviate congestion, which principle is recognized by all traffic experts as the chief factor in efficient working.—Yours faithfully,
London, N. ' ALFRED T. BENNETT, M.I.Mech.E.
Service Distinguishing Lights.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
.[25871 Sir,—In the issue of The Commercial Motor for March 15th the article on page 116, under the heading of "Identifying Buses on Regular Service," describes the efforts of various operators to distinguish their vehicles at night by means of coloured lights. May we point out that the showing of lights, other than white, to the front of a vehicle is contrary to law? Redwing Safety Services of this town equipped their vehicles with a distinguishing light some 14 months ago, but have had to discontinue the practice on receiving instructions from the police. 'Therefore, in any uniformity which is aimed at, sight must not be lost of the legaraspect. —Yours faithfully,
Redcar. FLEMING BROS.
[The lights essential under the Acts and Regulations are (1) a white light on the off side showing forwards and (2) a red light showing rearwards. Distinguishing lights that could not be confused with these have been einployed on public-service and other vehicles.— ED., CM.]