OPINIONS FROM OTHERS
Page 66
Page 67
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Our Municipal Number.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2765] Sir,—I should like to congratulate you on your special Municipal Number. I think it is by far the best edition you have turned out.—Yours faithfully, IL G. PALMER, Managing Director, For the EAGLE ENGINEERING CO., LTD.
Warwick.
A New Type of Windscreen.
The Editor, TTIE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2766] Sir,—I noticed in your issue dated April 9th an illustration of a furniture van incorporating a new type of windscreen and would like to point out that this is precisely the same as the screen I suggested in a letter to you, which was published on February 5th, except that the small panel opens outwards instead of inwards.
I think that this type of screen, if given a fair trial, will prove to be a boon to all drivers, its only fault, perhaps, being its somewhat unusual appearance. I notice that some of the L.G.O.C. buses are to be equipped with windscreens and I believe that this type of screen would most likely suit the conditions under which these vehicles run.
If this new type of screen comes into general use I trust that The Commercial Motor will share with me the honour of being parents of the idea.—Yours
D. CAMERON. Cromarty.
An Injustice to a Bus Company.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL Moron_ [2767] Sir,—As a regular reader of your journal 1 noticed in your " Wheels of Industry " columns of your issue dated April 2nd a report of my company having purchased the buses of the Fleetwood and Knott End
Motors. That is quite true; the only correction I would like you to make is that this company is a Fleetwood firm and does not belong to Blackpool.
As regards the Fleetwood Council having agreed to the Blackpool Corporation running buses to Fleetwood, I believe my explanation will help you to understand the situation.
I run a bus service between Fleetwood and Poulton, and at the latter place it is only a mile from the Blackpool boundary. I instituted the service long before the Blackpool Corporation had buses outside the borough, and on two or three occasions I applied to this corporation for leave to extend, by a Fleetwood-Poulton service, to Blackpool. On refusal I applied to the Ministry of Transport, which held an inquiry, in which I was the loser. Blackpool Corporation pointed out the unfairness of my application owing to the two oldestablished undertakings—the railway and the Blackpool trams—both services running from Fleetwood to Blackpool.
Consequently, I was surprised soon to see that the Blackpool Corporation was making use of my idea and had commenced a new bus service on my FleetwoodPoulton route from Thornton to Blackpool, thus giving the service to Thornton people which I had wished to supply. From the Thornton terminus to Fleetwood is a matter of four miles, and it is part of this route which the corporation wishes to extend to Fleetwood in order to make it a Fleetwood-to-Blackpool service instead of the Thornton-to-Blackpool one at present running. If the Ministry of Transport allows Blackpool to do o42 as it suggests, why did not the Ministry allow my appeal in the first place? It is cruel to local enterprise, such as that of the company I have formed, for the foundation of a service to be made and then for a corporation to come along and take the fruits which are denied to this company. Fleetwood Council has powers to run buses, but has not made use of them. But why should it agree to allow the Blackpool Corporation to carry through the enterprise when this corporation has refused permission to me?
I consider it a glaring mistake of the Government to allow councils and corporations to issue licences at their whim, nearly always with the idea of protecting themselves and often with the object of creating a monopoly. My company has sent an objection to the Ministry and is now awaiting the result.—Yours EDWARD A. LAWRENCE, Managing Director, For LAWRENCE MOTOR SERVICES, LTD_ Fleetwood.
The Hard-hit Haulier.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2768] Sir,—We have noted in your issue dated April 9th a letter on this subject from Mr. A. L. Hayward. We would suggest to him that before telling other people the best way to get on with their business he should ask what kind of work they do. If we had to depend upon the chair-transport trade we would have given up long ago. We carried only two loads in connection with this class of work, had to ask many times for our money and then had to wait four months for it. Mr. Hayward states that he has spoken to the chair manufacturers, but it is better to hear both sides. We do not think it was at all polite of him to sak that our complaint was typical of others emanating from the same source. He appears to take everybody's part except that of the haulier, although he states that he belongs to the Industrial Transport Association. Our work is all of a heavy nature. We take 4-5 tons of cardboards and bring back waste paper. We have been working for the same firm for six years; they do all they can to help us, but there is a limit to what they can pay. It is not the fault of our old Commers; they are extremely useful and do not use any more petrol than other vehicles that we have tried. Heavy taxation is the trouble, not the type of vehicle.
To be progressive in the manner Mr. Hayward recommends requires a lot of money ; we cannot afford to buy new lorries. In any case, the work is too uncertain and causes only anxiety.—Yours faithfully, F. BUTLER AND SON. High Wycombe.
Variable-speed Gears.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2769] Sir,—In the résumé of patents in the issue of The Commercial Motor dated April 9th you comment on an idea for a variable gear on the recedingfulcrum principle. Some time ago I made a model similar to that described except that the release was controlled by oil being forced through an aperture, varied in size by a lever, the wide-open position giving neutral and the closed position locking the mass, as in the case of the gear described. This gave a variable-speed gear without a doubt, but not a variable-power device, and consequently I did not proceed any farther with it.
Since then I have made another model, but in this case the varying speed of the receding fulcrum is obtained from the driving shaft. The drive obtained from this shaft, although variable, is quite a positive one. There is no braking or retarding effect by pressure of any description whatever to produce it.
In your comment you describe the receding-fulcrum idea as a fallacy. Does that mean, no matter how the receding effect is obtained, even, as in this case, by quite a free but variable runaway?
I would be much obliged if you could enlighten me on the subject. I am sure I have produced a variable gear of this type without the braking effect, but since reading your comment I am still in doubt as to its utility and await your reply.—Yours faithfully, Sunderland. W. E. WATSON.
[No gear which introduces the factor of " slip " into its principle of operation can possibly be as efficient as some positive form of drive. This slip means so much wastage of engine power, however it be controlled .—En. I
The Transport of Awkward Loads.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2770] Sir,—As a regular reader of your muchvalued paper I have been tempted to write to you for a little advice re haulage.
From time to time I have noticed that you have published illustrations and designs for your readers with regard to the cartage of special and awkward good, etc. These, I am sure, must be very helpful; my object in writing is to see if by designs, etc., you can help me a little.
I have a contract for the conveyance of steel girders over a distance of about 16 miles; that is, from a wharf to a steelyard. For this work I am using a 34-ton International on solid tyres, on which I carry about 5 tons. The length of the steel ranges from 20 ft. to 40 ft. and it is from 4 ins. by 2 ins. to 24 ins. by 74 ins. in section, the weights ranging from 2 cwt. to 2 tons.
I carry about 200tons of this steel a month.
The vehicle has a body with a loading space about 13 ft. by 6 ft. It is used about three-quarters of its time in the cartage of steel and the rest in general haulage.
I do not wish to make any radical changes in the vehicle itself, but I have in my mind something after the style of a two-wheeled " jinker " trailer with a turntable on the truck, which might allow me to carry 8-9 tons.
The truck also has to carry roof trusses about 30 ft. long and 7 ft.at their widest point. At present the cartage of these girders is very unsatisfactory. The swaying caused by the length results in excessive and uneven tyre wear, also v_ery bad steering, etc., on highly cambered roads.—Yours faithfully,
Perth. C. E. VARIAN.
[Before sending a comprehensive reply to Mr. Varian we would welcome letters from those of our readers who have been faced with similar problems. Those containing methods by which the trouble has been overcome will be published.—En.]
Improving the Tractor-lorry.
The Editor, TER COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2771] Sir,—As an advertiser in and constant reader of The Commercial Motor, please accept my best thanks for the reference on April 9th to my patent No. 306,860, regarding "Four Driving Wheels for a Tractor-lorry." Perhaps my reasons for concentrating on the tractor-trailer combination will be of further interest to your good selves.
In my humble opinion previous attempts to adapt the agricultural tractor to industrial use have been much in the nature of compromises, and consequently inherent faults have inevitably crept into its present application with two and four-wheeled trailers, which may perhaps have had a retarding influence upon the more extensive use of tractors in this sphere. The chief faults are wheelspin of the driving wheels, rearing of the tractor front and sinkage in soft ground at the dictates of working conditions. There is also the objection to the unsprung nature of the tractor body.
I believe many agricultural tractors, adapted as the power units of transport vehicles, are worthy and capable (by reason of their mechanical efficiency) of respectably competing with the more orthodox type of vehicle if they be more efficiently applied.
'My method has been conceived with a view to eliminating all recognized existing objections and involving essential modifications to assure a power unit more approaching the efficiency of the orthodox than heretofore. This is effected by designing the vehicle with a completely sprung unit with steering wheels of larger diameter. This combination is controllable in a rearward direction and gives light individual wheel pressure upon the ground.
I am prepared to negotiate with interested parties for its exploitation.
Allow me to express my admiration for your efforts on behalf of all interested in commercial road transport.
—Yours faithfully. W. JACKSON. Manchester.
The Cost of Collecting Household Refuse.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[2772] Sir,—I have been lunch interested in perusing the article dealing with the cost of refuse Collection, but cannot reconcile Table II in the absence of any statement regarding the number of working days--e.g., the item "Licence."
The licence for a 1-ton and 11-ton vehicle is stated to be 2s. 2d. per day. The licence for a 1-tonner is £15 and for a li-tonner £20., which at an average of 28.2d. per day represents approximately only 140 and 108 working days respectively, and in the case of 2-ton and 3-ton petrol vehicles the tax is £25 and £40 respectively ; and, again, at 36. 2d. per day this averages 160 and 252 working days respectively. At 280 working days per annum (allowing for 52 Sundays, 52 Saturday half-days and seven days' holiday), these show an average of is. 1d., is. 5d„ is. 91d. and 2s. 10d. respectively, as indicated in the following table:— charges, which are irrespective of the number of working days the vehicles are actually in service, and Table II would have been of more value to your readers had the operating costs per day been shown in two parts—" standing" and "running charges." The same observations apply to third-party insurance.
Perhaps your contributor could enlighten me en this
matter, as I am particularly interested in transport costs and very much appreciate the information he has been kind enough to present to your readers.—Yours
faithfully. CHARLES FURNESS, Tramways General Engineer.
Blackpool.
[It is to be regretted that an arithmetical error has been allowed to creep into the figures for cost of licences embodied in the table in question. .The correct figures should actually be those in the last ,column of Mr. Furness's schedule. On the matter of the distinction between " standing " and "running charges" I am generally in agreement with this correspondent, but where the calculation is one of time only, involving no mileage, and where, as should be in a case of this sort, the number of working days per annum is known and does not greatly vary, it seems unnecessary to complicate the table of cost by splitting it into two parts.—S.T.11.]