Railways Criticize Manufacturers
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of-IASSIS and accessory manufac turers were castigated byrailway representatives in a debate at Olympia, last week, under the auspices of the Railway Companies' Assoeation, on the resolution "that the present-day motor manufacturers have not yet generally recognized the importance of the shortdistance haulier with his special requirements." Mr. W. IL Gaunt presided, and Mr. F. C. A. Coventry
opened the discussion. • He defined the short-distance haulier as a man whose vehicle covers not more than about 9,000 miles a year. The Great Western Railway Co., of which he is road motor engineer, operated, he said, 3,000 vehicles, each of which averaged .24.72 miles per day, and, on the basis of a 150,000-mile life, should be fit for seririce for 161 years. Mr. Coventry regarded three minutes as a reasonable period per 'call on delivery work, and, on the ,basis of 130 calls per day, not more than 30 miles at an average of 15 m.p.h, could be giade in an 84-hour working clay.
Short-distance Haulier Neglected.
He declared that the special requirements., of the : short-distance . haulier were covered by not more than 3 per cent., of the makers •exhibiting at the Show, although a big market for a suitable vehicle awaited them,Mr. Coventry thought that the acc.essory maker was, if anything, a greater offender than the chassis maker. He maintained that the electrical equipment of the modern commercial vehicle was unsuitable for the arduous conditions of short-distance deliveries; starters would not, withstand the heavy calls made upon them, and special tyres were required. The G.W.R., he said, had had to revert to the practice of 10-1.5 years ago and charge batteries in the garage. In a nutshell, the short-distance haulier required a vehicle much simplified in design and at a low price.
Mr. L. H. Pomeroy, chief engineer of the Daimler Co., Ltd., on behalf of the motor manufacturers, remarked that, in seeking a specialised
vehicle for which there was a strictly limited market, at a low price, the railways were asking for an a la carte menu at table d'hOte figure. The rail-, ways were dominated by the economic urge.
Mr. C. R. Byrom, chief operating manager of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Co., summarized the requirements of the railways and other operators having similar problems as being suitability of capacity, good ma.ncettymbility, easy access to the cab, and, most important of all, low first cost and running charges.
Dr. Haworth, of Leyland Motors, Ltd., suggested that the railways should combine to evolve types • ot machine that WOuld meet their needs for, say, the next two years, so that prOduction might be arranged.: . • lr John, Stigarraan; road motor: engineer of the' L.M.S,, pOinted out that the railways had made • their requirements known to manufacturers, but the response 'had not been totally
satisfactory. He-. :considered_ that modern design. complicated maintenance.
The speaker questioned the •value of chromium-plated radiators, seven-Wm) lighting sets, eight-cylindered engines, elaborate cabs and four-speed gearboxes for short-distance vehicles. He felt that progress in goods-vehicle design had been sacrificed to concentration on improving the public service vehicle. . Mr. J. B. Osier, chief engineer of Carter Paterson and Co., Ltd., also expressed willingness to pay a little extra for a machine that would, in the long run, cost less to operate and to maintain. He suggested that mannJactnrers might design local delivery vehicles to run on horne-produced fuel, and considered that there was a wide sphere for the short-distance motor.
Mr. Guy. Jones, of the London and North Eastern Railivay 'Co., enumerated " unnecessary refinements that could be removed,, including even front-wheeI. brakes. ' He would, be said, like to see the introduction of a forced-air-cooled engine with, say, an
epicyclic gearbox. In his experience, cylinder wear with small vehicles was greater than in the case of large machines. • Mr. Smith, of John I. Thornycroft and Co., Ltd., declared that it was impossible to meet the railways' requirements at the price.
Mr. A. R. Wilson, of the London and Northern Eastern Railway Co., in a vigorous address, submitted that the' commercial-Vehicle industry was the only trade in which manufacturers would openly--." denounce!' their cus tomers. They. ,were ignoring the market for some 200,000 vehicles.
.Mr. T. 'Keep, managing director of Coinmer Cars, Ltd., •argued-that the railways had not given a fair trial to standard types, which were quite satisfactory for their work, and that, .they should -oiler financial .• aSsistance-.: to Makers to eVolve-specialiZed modeis. Lient:-Col.' A., G.' Scarnmell; director of Scan-imell Lorries, • Ltd.. remarked that it was not always possible to' obtain the co-ordinated viewS of the
four main-line railway companies 'upon their requirenients. • ,•''•
Mr, Parsons',' of the lop" Rubber Co., Ltd., •replied to the criticisins made of tyres "supplied for short- distance-vehicles. •
Market Too Small.
Mr. J. D. Parkes, director of Albion, • Motors, Ltd., considered that the. market was not large enough to justify the huge expenditure necessary to evolve highly specialized types.
Mr. W. H. Gaunt, in concluding the debate; expressed the belief that the requirements of the railways applied
• also to many other operators.
At the luncheon, given to delegates by the Society of Motor Manufacturers. and Traders, follovsing the debate,Sir George Beharrefi, , the chairman,. -declared that the special 'needs of!. 'various trades were now being catered for to a greater extent than ever.
'Mr. E. J.1-1. Lemon; vice-president of the L.M.S., felt that there could be no real enmity between road and rail.