OPINIONS and QUERIES A Reply to Mr. Clifford's Letter Criticizing the Associations.
Page 45
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3939] Sir,—Mr. Clifford, in his letter in your issue dated December 9, criticizes the Road Haulage Association because it is applying itself towards combating restrictive legislation, and he says that there is no inducement for any haulier to join the Association because it does not do anything In the matter of improving the standard of conditions.
From the information before me Mr. Clifford is not a member of the Road Haulage Association, and therefore he adopts the policy of many others who are standing outside the ranks, possibly waiting until all the work is done before he comes in.
It must be apparent to your readers that without a very great measure of support and co-operation in the trade itself no association can improve conditions in the business, because the members of the association, In standing fast to rates, would be subject to the competition of all the non-members who were not committed to such a policy.
I have frequently indicated that if the Association could secure the membership of the majority of firms engaged in road transport, the adjustment of conditions, rates, etc., are only a matter of detail, and could be readily carried into effect ;hut, whilst we have firms engaged in business like mr. Clifford's firm, who are merely "lookers-on," the present state of affairs must continue.
In the meantime, the Road Haulage Association is fighting restrictive legislation, and I consider that is very essential work. I am surprised to hear Mr. Clifford say that the road-haulage contractor will be no better off If the Salter Report be defeated. He does not say what the position of the trade will be if the report is not defeated. Surely he will agree that if the report is implemented by legislation, then the conditions we shall be compelled to work under will be very difficult. If the report be defeated, then Mr. Clifford will no doubt pay thanks to the Road Haulage Association and other bodies for the efforts they have put forward in securing this result.
One of your other correspondents said that we require a Mussolini in our industry. That may be so, and it is very easy to write such letters, but frequently the authors of the letters have not even sufficient energy to sign a form of membership to an existing association, but confidently think that it is possible to produce a man of the type that they indicate and expect him to expend the whole of his time begging hauliers to wake up and help themselves. So soon as hauliers realize they can help themselves by banding together in one body the sooner they will benefit.
E. C. MARSTON, Chairman, London, W.C.2. Road Haulage Association.
Owner-drivers and Long-distance Haulage by Road.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3940] Sir,—Having read Capt. Palmer's contribution in the Dee. 9 issue of The Commercial Motor, it is pleasant to know that some people well up in the world have an idea of the way the owner-driver has to work his lorry. As Capt. Palmer points out in his second paragraph, firms nowadays name their own rates for their transport, and the average clearing-house is only too eager to accept traffic on any terms, whether it be at 10s. or 30s. per ton. In many cases it is then offered to the haulier at, at least, 2s. or 3s. per ton lower, less also the usual 10 per cent. commission, 2i per cent. insurance and another 2S per cent, if the haulier be Paid before two months have elapsed.
As regards the part of the article dealing with the professional haulier, and the question of leaving longdistance transport to him, has Capt. Palmer any suggestion to offer as to what work the owner-driver could do in place of this?
No one is anxious to work night and day. I, for one, would be pleased to find other work with reasonable hours. I suppose Capt. Palmer's idea is for the small man to give his lorry up and starve, because if it became law that only "professional hauliers" were allowed to cater for long-distance traffic, it would mean even more unemployment than there is at present. Even if it be only an existence we get now, it is at least something to look forward to at the end of the month; that, surely, is better than nothing?
No doubt many other owner-drivers will back up my statements and possibly throw a lot more light on the subject than I am aware of, having very fortunately had only 18 months' experience of long-distance transport, and being just as anxious as Capt. Palmer to leave it all to the professional haulier as soon as I can find another way of ekeing out an existence.
C. A. PLOWMAN. London, S.W,18.
Coach Operators and Flying.
The Editor, TEE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3941] Sir,—Certainly the possibilities for the use of aircraft in conjunction with road services are very considerable, and, so far, largely unexploited. In drawing attention to this, the article published in your issue of November 25 is valuable, but some comment seems to be indicated upon certain of the writer's statements, and omissions.
There is, for example, rather more to be said about establishing an aerodrome than, possibly, he found room to include. The chief point in that connection Is that, before the ground can be used for a passenger service, it must be licensed by the Air Ministry. The formalities in that matter, as in others connected with commercial aviation, are not inconsiderable.
Several other points in the article invite argument ; for example, the writer is dogmatic in his assertion that a three-engined machine is a necessity where a sea crossing is involved. It is only fair to your readers to point out that highly competent aeronautical opinion is quite otherwise.
To discuss every debatable point in this article would occupy an altogether undue amount of space, and I will therefore deal with only one statement that appears to me to be a prime and _cardinal error—and a somewhat dangerous one. The writer remarks that "it is not too much to say that the tendency is for the whole of the internal flying for hire in this country to come into the hands of the coach operators."
On the contrary, it is a great deal too much to say, and, as one fairly well in touch with flying matters, I flatly deny it. Further, I do. think it dangerous—if only from the financial point of view—to suggest to coach owners that they need only buy an aeroplane and hire a pilot (at the cheapest possible rate) to become successful aircraft operators. It is not so easy as all that ; would that it were!
Commercial flying, more than most other businesses, is emphatically not one for amateurs, however successful they may have been, in other matters. And it is by no means a field for the get-rich-quick specialist. There are, possibly, more rapid ways of losing money than mishandling an air service, but not many, as quite a number of people haie somewhat painfully discovered in the past few years.
The coach operator who wishes to interest himself practically in flying should begin by engaging not the cheapest employee he can possibly obtain, but a man whose complete competence at his job enables him to command a decent wage. He should act as the firm's pilot and as manager of its aviation side—and given a free hand he will make a success of his job. That is the only way to set about it—unless, of course, the operator is looking for an assortment of trouble.
Bucks. F.J.
Mr. Tangye Champions the Pre-combustionchamber Engine, The Editor, TH,E COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
13942] Sir,—May I once more encroach on your space in order to substantiate as briefly as possible the claims for the chamber-type C.I. engine put forward in my letter in your issue of November 11, since Mr. Goddard has again taken up •the matter? He states that I agreed to the fact that the fuel consumption of the chamber engine is 14 per cent, greater than that of the Gardner. This is only half the truth, as I said that this difference was at the minimum consumption in each case. Now, the consumption curve of the chamber engine is flatter than that of the direct-injection engine, so that the difference in consumption when measured •under running conditions would be far less, probably 9 per cent. to 10 per cent.; which, when taken over a year's working, would seldom amount to more than £6 or £7 on the fuel bill—a small amount to pay for the advantages of this type of engine. My original figure of 6 per cent. was based on the published Gardner curves, but if the consumption be as low as Mr. Goddard says, I agree that this may be 10 per cent, when the direct-injection engine is new.
Dealing with the points he raises :—
(1) Output per litre : This, as Mr. Goddard aptly says, 'depends on -the speed. That being so, engines
must be compared at their designed rated speeds. in this case the output of the Tangye is 14.2 b.h.p. to 15.2 b.h.p. per litre, against 12.14 b.h.p. with the Gardner at its rated speed, or 13.33 b.h.p. at the overspeed of 2,000 r.p.m.
• (2) Crankcase dilution: Either cylinder wear or dilution is always present to a greater extent than in a chamber engine. Admittedly, oil tends to thicken in the latter type, but only up to a point, after which it n36 remains constant. This is never sufficient to cause trouble.
(3) Needs no answer.
(4) To say that a chamber engine requires a higher compression ratio is, of course, the converse of the true case. The compression ratio of the Tangye is 136— lower than the Gardner.
(5) Ability to run at high speeds: An engine of the Tangye type is running at speeds up to 3,900 r.P.m. and producing 20 b.h.p. per litre with a very low consumption. Can any direct-injection engine do this consistently?
(6) Ability to adapt itself to varying conditions of load : There is no need to consider combustion cycles to realize that the chamber engine is superior, in this respect. The exhaust of the engine is the indication. In the Tangye engine this is looked after by the highly sensitive insulated shell in the combustion chamber, which adapts itself far more readily than the massive, water-cooled surfaces of the direct-injection engine.
C. G. TANGYE.
"Send Your Christmas Parcels by Road."
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3943] Sir,—Recently there have appeared in the daily Press advertisements including the slogan, "Send Your Christmas Parcels By Rail" and others of a similar nature, but I have seen none by road-transport companies. Even if large firms and businesses be kept acquainted with road services, is there not a market for parcels weighing pounds as well as for loads weighing hundredweights?
Surely an active campaign by clearing-houses and agents would bring in a lot of business, even though particular services were not advertised. Specimen rates for parcels and small articles to different towns (insurance included) would at least arouse interest, if
nothing more. WELL-WISHER. Edinburgh 9.
Carrying a Caravan Body on a Lorry.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3944] Sir,—Being a regular reader of The Corn" mercial Motor, I am writing to you for your, advice. I am thinking of building a portable caravan to lift on to one of my Chevrolet 30-cwt. lorries so that I may go touring during the week-ends, etc. I shall be taking my wife and two friends. Will I need any particular licence for this as I have only a goods licence for this 'vehicle?
Regarding the insurance, I hold a full comprehensive policy for general haulage. Would this still cover me under the Road Traffic Act? I would also be glad to have your Tables of Operating Costs for 30-cwt. lorries. F, SMITH. Surbiton.
[The probability is that if the point were tested in the courts it would be held that your Chevrolet, with a portable caravan upon it, constituted a single vehicle, so that the weight of the caravan would have to be taken into account when ascertaining the unladen weight of the vehicle. The licence duty would be based upon the unladen weight in the same way as for a commercial goods vehicle, as the vehicle would be a vehicle which had been adapted for the conveyance of goods or burden, -whether in the course of trade or otherwise. In addition to paying any additional duty which may be necessary in consequence of the increased unladen weight, you will have to notify the licensing authority of the fact that the vehicle will be used with a caravan upon it, as this will alter the description of the vehicle which appears on the licence. With regard to insurance, it is essential that you should notify the insurance company of the fact that the vehicle will be used with a caravan attachment, as we assume that when you took out your policy you stated that it would only be used for the carriage of goods. To use the vehicle for any other purpose without notifying the insurance company and getting them to agree to hold you covered, would vitiate your poliey.—ED.]